R v Paul Ashmore
[2024] EWCA Crim 1083
R v Leighton Williams
9 May 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 686
Court of Appeal
A young man received a very long prison sentence for hurting someone. His lawyers argued the judge got it wrong by not considering his young age and alcohol issues. The appeal court agreed, cancelled the long sentence, and released him immediately, but with support from the probation service.
Key Facts
- •Leighton Williams convicted on 4 June 2008 of causing grievous bodily harm with intent (s.18 Offences against the Person Act 1861).
- •Sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for public protection (IPP) with a 30-month minimum term.
- •Offence involved a drunken confrontation in a park, resulting in serious injuries to the victim.
- •Applicant had a prior conviction for s.18 GBH.
- •Application for leave to appeal against sentence made in 2023.
- •Grounds of appeal: Recorder incorrectly applied the test of dangerousness.
Legal Principles
Test for dangerousness under sections 225 and 229 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Criminal Justice Act 2003, sections 225 and 229
Guidance from R v Lang [2005] EWCA Crim 2864 on the approach to findings of dangerousness.
R v Lang [2005] EWCA Crim 2864
Factors to consider when assessing significant risk (R v Lang): significance of the risk, nature and circumstances of the current offence, offender's history, patterns of behaviour, social and economic factors, and the offender's thinking and attitude.
R v Lang [2005] EWCA Crim 2864, paragraph 17
Sentencing Council Guideline on Sentencing Children and Young People regarding factors that diminish culpability in children and young people.
Sentencing Council Guideline on Sentencing Children and Young People
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The recorder incorrectly applied the test of dangerousness by failing to consider the applicant's young age, the different contexts of the two s.18 offences, and the potential mitigating effect of alcohol abuse and the applicant's willingness to address it.
IPP sentence quashed.
The court found that the dangerousness criterion was not met.
Determinate sentence of five years' detention substituted (resulting in immediate release).
The applicant had already served the equivalent of a five-year sentence.