R v Harry Jones
[2023] EWCA Crim 1443
R v Shaun Brown
27 June 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1099
Court of Appeal
Two brothers violently attacked a man. The judge gave them suspended sentences, but the Court of Appeal decided this was too lenient. They were given 3.5 year prison sentences because the attack was much more serious than the judge realised.
Key Facts
- •Shaun and Kenneth Brown, brothers, pleaded guilty to attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent.
- •The attack, captured on CCTV, involved a sustained and brutal assault on Kyle Bowman-Rogers.
- •Bowman-Rogers suffered fractures, cuts, and extensive bruising.
- •The brothers were initially sentenced to two years' imprisonment, suspended for two years, with other requirements.
- •The Attorney General referred the case due to unduly lenient sentencing.
- •The brothers had no prior convictions but were intoxicated during the attack.
Legal Principles
Sentencing for attempted offences should be based on the intended harm, not the harm actually caused.
R v Laverick [2015] EWCA Crim 1059 and R v Muthuraja [2019] EWCA Crim 1740
The Sentencing Council's guideline for sentencing offences contrary to section 18 of the 1861 Act should be applied.
Sentencing Council's definitive guideline
Aggravating and mitigating factors must be considered when determining the appropriate sentence.
Attorney General’s Reference (Susorovs ) [2016] EWCA Crim 1856 and R v Muthuraja
Outcomes
The original sentences were quashed as unduly lenient.
The court found that the culpability was higher than assessed at the lower court and that the harm intended was more serious than the harm actually inflicted, and that several aggravating factors were present.
New sentences of three years and six months' imprisonment were imposed for each brother.
This reflects the serious nature of the intended harm and the aggravating factors, while acknowledging mitigating factors and the prosecutorial change in approach.