Campbell, R. v

LORD JUSTICE FLAUX: On 7th April 2017 following a trial in the Crown Court at St. Albans before His Honour Judge Andrew Bright QC and a jury, this applicant, now aged 34, was convicted of a count of wounding with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He was acquitted on a count of attempted murder. His co-accused, Thomas, was acquitted on both counts.

On 5th May 2017 the applicant was sentenced by the same judge to an extended sentence of 15 years, with a 10 year custodial term and a five-year extension. He now renews his application for leave to appeal against sentence following refusal by the single judge.

On the evening of 21st October 2016 the applicant was in a nightclub in Stevenage. He and the victim, Adrian Simpson were seen talking and at the bar together. There was clearly animosity between them which developed into physical violence. They were restrained by security staff and Simpson was ushered from the club. He returned at about 1 am when the club was winding down and continued the argument. At one point the applicant threw a hot drink into Simpson's face.

A man called Dhillon, who knew Simpson, offered to drive him home. Shortly after they drove off, Simpson asked him to stop the car and got out. Dhillon saw the applicant and Thomas walking towards Simpson and he was sufficiently concerned that he drove straight to the police station to alert the police.

Simpson took out a gun and fired it towards the applicant and Thomas, possibly more than once, but missing them. The applicant ran towards Simpson with the knife he had with him. A fight may have ensued, but either when Simpson tripped and fell over or was overcome and on the ground as a consequence of the fight between himself and the applicant, the applicant jumped on top of him, held him down and stabbed him repeatedly to the chest and upper body. He ignored calls from other people to stop and carried on stabbing Simpson, who received a total of 11 stab wounds, together with defensive injuries to his hands as he tried to protect himself. The injuries to his chest and upper body were potentially fatal and his large intestine was hanging out of his body.

Eventually the applicant left Simpson alone and he and Thomas left, leaving Simpson bleeding heavily in the street. A friend of Simpson took him to the hospital in his car where he underwent life-saving surgery.

Police arrived at the scene and found a large pool of Simpson's blood. They found the knife nearby with his blood on it, together with the applicant's DNA. He was subsequently arrested, and refused to answer any questions put in interview.

The applicant had nine previous convictions for offences committed between 2003 and 2016, although it is fair to say that none of them was of any particular seriousness. In March 2005 he was sentenced to eight weeks' imprisonment for an offence of having an offensive weapon in a public place, and in September 2015 he received a community sentence again for having a bladed article in a public place on two occasions. In 2008 he was sentenced to eight weeks' imprisonment for battery and in 2014 he received a conditional discharge for assaulting a constable. Most recently in October 2016 he was fined by the magistrates for possession of ammunition without a certificate. He also had convictions for three drug-related offences.

The judge had adjourned sentence for a pre-sentence report. That report referred to the applicant being involved in gang activity. The report indicated that his complete lack of regard and remorse for his offending was a cause for further concern with regard to the risk of harm he posed to others and his risk of committing similar violent behaviour in the future. He was fully culpable for his offending behaviour. His previous offending behaviour indicated there was a pattern of drug-related and violent offending. The risk of serious harm that he posed could not be managed appropriately in the community. He was assessed by the author as posing a high risk of serious harm to the victim of the index offence and to members of the public. He referred to his previous convictions for possession of weapons and police intelligence suggesting that he had easy access to firearms and weapons. The author concluded that he met the criteria for dangerousness.

Importantly in sentencing the applicant, the judge accepted that the pre-sentence report erroneously referred to his involvement in gang culture and previous domestic violence which had no bearing on the conclusion which the judge reached. The judge said in terms that he was not sentencing on the basis of gang membership or anything relating to gangs, of which there was no evidence whatsoever. However, having listened with care to the evidence given at the trial, the judge said that he was able to make his own factual findings and sentenced him on that basis. The judge accepted for the purposes of sentence that Simpson had discharged a firearm which he had with him in the applicant's direction. He then described the applicant's attack on Simpson. The judge said that what the applicant did was not done in excessive self-defence, as contended on his behalf, but in retaliation for what Simpson had done to him and he sentenced the applicant on that basis.

The judge agreed with the author of the pre-sentence report at least to this extent, that the applicant's record indicated that there was a pattern of drug-related and violent offending behaviour and he noted the disclosure by the applicant to the probation officer that he habitually carried weapons in public. The judge agreed with the conclusion of the pre-sentence report that the applicant was a dangerous offender, although not necessarily by the same route. He considered that that conclusion was justified by the very circumstances of the offence and the way the applicant had behaved and concluded also that an extended sentence was appropriate.

The offence was clearly within Category 1 of the relevant Guideline which had a starting point of 12 years' custody and a range of nine to 16 years. The judge found that previous convictions were an aggravating factor but he treated as a significant mitigating factor the fact that Simpson discharged a firearm in the applicant's direction shortly before he had launched his attack upon Simpson with the knife. Taking into account the mitigating and aggravating factors, the judge concluded the custodial term should be 10 years' imprisonment and the extended licence period was set at five years.

In his grounds of appeal, and in his attractive oral submissions to this court, Mr Langley does not challenge either that the offence fell within Category 1 or the custodial term of 10 years' imprisonment. The only aspect that is challenged is the finding of dangerousness and the passing of the extended sentence. Mr Langley submits first that the judge paid insufficient regard to the fact that at first the applicant was acting in self-defence after Simpson was shooting at him, and that even if the judge was right that the applicant acted in retaliation, the circumstances were so extreme that they could not be the foundation of a finding of serious harm to members of the public in the future since the circumstances in which the applicant found himself were unlikely ever to happen again.

In our judgment, the judge was quite right to reject any suggestion that the applicant was acting in self-defence at the time when he was stabbing Simpson on the ground. The attack on Simpson was retaliation, notwithstanding the provocation, and this was a violent, frenzied attack with a knife that caused near fatal injuries. The very nature and circumstances of the offending and the applicant's violent behaviour and complete loss of self-control pointed strongly to him satisfying the criteria of dangerousness. It was no answer to say that the specific circumstances might not recur. The judge was entitled to find that the propensity for extreme violence which this offence in itself demonstrated established without more that this applicant was dangerous.

Mr Langley submitted that because the finding of dangerousness in the pre-sentence report was based on inadmissible police intelligence and an incorrect assessment that the applicant was involved in gang activity and habitually carried a knife, those conclusions are likely to have influenced the judge and in effect tainted his decision. Like the single judge, we do not consider that there is anything in this point. The judge made it quite clear that he was leaving out of account the erroneous parts of the report. His finding of dangerousness was based upon his own assessment of the applicant and of the offence, having heard all the evidence at trial. Mr Langley pointed out that this offence was far more serious than any of the applicant's previous convictions which did not involve specified offences and that the longest previous sentence of imprisonment was eight weeks, suggesting that the previous convictions were no indication of what might happen in the future. That is of course true, but it seems to us that the judge had that point well in mind. The reality is, as we have said, that the very circumstances and extreme violence of this offending justified the finding of dangerousness which, as we have indicated, the judge was best placed to make.

Notwithstanding the submissions made by Mr Langley, we consider that there is nothing in these grounds of appeal and this renewed application is refused.

WordWave International Ltd trading as DTI hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof.