Weekes, R. v

THE VICE PRESIDENT: The Attorney-General seeks the leave of the Court, under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, to refer a sentence said to be unduly lenient. We grant leave. The offender is 52 years of age having been born in December 1951. On 12th January 2004 he pleaded guilty to an offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He was sentenced, on that occasion, by Her Honour Judge Hughes QC at Snaresbrook Crown Court to 3 years' imprisonment.

In summary, the offender attacked his wife with a hammer, so that she suffered two depressed and commutated fractures of the skull. The attack was witnessed by the couple's 13 year old son, who intervened, with a knife, in order to stop the attack.

In a little more detail, the offender and his wife had known each other for 14 years and had been married for about 8. They had three sons, aged 13, 6 and 4. When Mrs Weekes was pregnant with her second son instability developed in the marriage because the offender became abusive towards her and jealous and possessive. About 3 years before the attack Mrs Weekes told the offender that she wanted to leave. He thereafter threatened to hit her and threatened other forms of violence to her on several occasions.

On 24th April 2003 she was in bed at about 11 o'clock in the evening. The three sons were asleep elsewhere in the house. The offender came in and asked about her work and there was a brief conversation between them, in the course of which the offender became irritated. At that stage Mrs Weekes' mobile telephone rang. This caused the offender to be even more angry. He took the telephone from her, pulled out the land line telephone from its socket and left the room. She followed. She began to run down the stairs, but she fell and, at the foot of the stairs, skidded along the corridor on her knees. She was not seriously hurt but she asked the offender to call for an ambulance because she was frightened of him. He refused but brought a duvet for her and her bag and then fetched a bottle of beer for himself. He told her that if she could not walk she could crawl into the sitting room. He then went back into the kitchen. She lay on the floor for about 20 minutes and then she tried to sit up. As she did so, the offender attacked her with a hammer which had been lying in the hall. The first blow caused her to urinate. The offender hit her again twice as she tried to get up. The 13 year old son, who had been awakened by the noise, saw his father hitting his mother with the hammer and he, with a knife, intervened, challenging his father to stop. Mrs Weekes was able to escape while the offender was distracted by their son and she sought help from a neighbour.

The consequences to the victim were two multiple uneven lacerations of the scalp, mainly on the top and back of the head and two depressed and comminuted compound skull fractures, in connection with which there were pieces of broken bone which could be felt. She underwent surgery. The wounds were stitched and cleaned and she was discharged from hospital after about four or five days. In the meantime, the offender had presented himself at a police station, at 1.30 in the morning, claiming to the police that his wife had hit him and he had hit her. When formally interviewed, he declined to answer any questions.

On behalf of the Attorney-General Miss Whitehouse draws attention to seven aggravating features. First, the attack was in the victim's own home. Secondly, the children were asleep at the time. Thirdly, the attack was unprovoked. Fourthly, it took place when the victim was lying defenceless on the floor. Fifthly, a hammer was deliberately used on the head. Sixthly, the 13 year old son witnessed the attack, and seventhly, the attack only ceased when the child intervened.

Miss Whitehouse draws attention to the mitigation to be found, first, in the fact that the offender was a hard working man of good character. Secondly, he pleaded guilty, in relation to which, although the plea came fairly late, he was given full credit by the sentencing judge. Thirdly, the offender's conduct on this occasion was out of character and took place against a background of depression and morbid jealousy, in the context of the consumption of three or four cans of beer that evening.

The Court's attention has been drawn to a number of authorities by Miss Whitehouse. In R v Hudson [2003] 2 Cr App R(S) 327, a sentence of 6 years was upheld by this Court, following a plea of guilty; in Attorney-General's Reference No 98 of 2002 (R v Bishop) [2003] 2 Cr App R(S) 563, Kay LJ, giving the judgment of the Court, (which included an indication that the appropriate sentence in that case should have been three-and-a-half years in the court below), pointed out that violence in the domestic context is no less serious than other context and, in some cases, can be even more serious. With that observation we agree. In Attorney-General's Reference No 30 of 2 of 1994 (R v Dawson) 16 Cr App R(S) 710, following a guilty plea, a sentence of 30 months was increased by this Court to 5 years. The offender in that case had a previous conviction for attempted murder. In the course of giving the judgment of the Court Lord Taylor CJ said, at page 713 of the report that the results of an attack of this kind are important but the conduct of the offender is of even more importance. In Attorney-General's Reference No 19 of 1994 (R v Arnold) 16 Cr App R(S) 541, following a trial, a sentence of 2 years was increased to 5 years and in R v Davies 8 Cr App R(S) 97, following a plea of guilty, in a case in which the violence had even graver consequences than in the present case, a sentence of 7 years was upheld in relation to a man of good character. Miss Whitehouse's submission is that the sentence of 3 years imposed by the sentencing judge failed to reflect the aggravating features to which attention is drawn.

On behalf of the offender, Mr Reid invited our attention to other authorities: in particular, R v Mannion [1999] 2 Cr App R(S) 240, where a sentence of 4 years' imprisonment was reduced to 3 years, following a guilty plea and Attorney-General's Reference No 68 of 2002 (R v Catteral) [2003] 1 Cr App R(S) 498, where a sentence of two-and-a-half years was increased to 4 years following a trial. In the course of the judgment given in that case, it was indicated that, in the light of the facts of that case, a sentence in the court below of the order of 5 years' imprisonment was to have been expected.

Mr Reid accepts that the sentence passed by the learned sentencing judge was a lenient one towards the bottom of whatever range is appropriate following a guilty plea in relation to section 18 offences. He stressed the indication of remorse given by the offender in addition to the guilty plea.

He invites the Court, in the light of all the circumstances, not to interfere with the sentence which was passed by the learned trial judge. That is not a submission to which we are able to accede.

In our judgment, a sentence in the court below of the order of five-and-a-half to 6 years ought to have been imposed. It follows that the sentence passed was unduly lenient. Taking into account double jeopardy, that is to say that the offender is being sentenced a second time, the sentence which we pass, in the light of all the circumstances of this matter to which we have drawn attention, in substitution for the sentence of 3 years imposed by the Crown Court judge, is one of four-and-a-half years' imprisonment.