Downing, R. v [2017] EWCA Crim 817 (24 May 2017)

Downing, R. v [2017] EWCA Crim 817 (24 May 2017)

The original sentence failed to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offending and the multiple aggravating features. The court held that a significant upward adjustment from the starting point was justified, and the only mitigation was the guilty plea. The sentence was unduly lenient and was increased accordingly.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Crim 817
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Offender: Stephen Anthony Downing
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Reference by Attorney General Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988 / Appeal Against Sentence; Review of Sentence for Undue Leniency
Outcome
Sentence on count 2 quashed; new sentence imposed
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm, Attempted Grievous Bodily Harm With Intent, Domestic Violence, Aggravating and Mitigating Factors, Dangerousness, Extended Sentence
Criminal Law Sentencing Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm Attempted Grievous Bodily Harm With Intent Domestic Violence Aggravating and Mitigating Factors Dangerousness Extended Sentence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Stephen Anthony Downing

Offender

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Reference by Attorney General Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988 / Appeal Against Sentence; Review of Sentence for Undue Leniency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed for attempted grievous bodily harm with intent was unduly lenient
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge properly accounted for aggravating and mitigating factors
  3. 3 Appropriateness of downward adjustment for attempt versus completed offence

Ratio Decidendi

The original sentence failed to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offending and the multiple aggravating features. The court held that a significant upward adjustment from the starting point was justified, and the only mitigation was the guilty plea. The sentence was unduly lenient and was increased accordingly.

Court Disposition

Sentence on count 2 quashed; new sentence imposed

Orders

  • Sentence on count 2 increased to 7 years' imprisonment with an extension period of 4 years
  • Leave to refer granted