Kambarani, R v

MRS JUSTICE LANG: This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence after refusal by the single judge.

On 27th February 2017 at the Crown Court at Luton, the applicant was convicted and sentenced for the following offences. Attempted murder, contrary to section 1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981, an extended sentence under section 226A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 of 25 years comprising a custodial term of 22 years and an extension period of 3 years. Damaging property contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, four weeks' imprisonment to run concurrently. Stalking contrary to section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, nine months' imprisonment to run concurrently. An indefinite restraining order was also made.

The facts may be briefly stated. The applicant's wife Tadiwa Nyamazana left him in June 2016 with their young daughter, A. They moved in with Tadiwa's aunt, Ruth Nyamazana and her uncle who lived in Milton Keynes. The applicant lived in Wolverhampton. The applicant stalked Tadiwa by following and pestering her and accessing her phone and social media accounts. On 27th June 2016 after an outing with Tadiwa and A the applicant confronted Ruth at the door of the house, abusing her and accusing her of taking A from him. When she tried to shut the door he smashed the glass panel on the door.

On 22nd August 2016 the applicant followed Ruth as she drove to work using someone else's car so that she would not recognise him. As she came to a halt he deliberately rammed the rear of her car. They both got out of their cars and the applicant began to shout angrily at her, accusing her of stopping him from seeing his daughter. He was wearing blue surgical gloves and was armed with a knife. He punched her in the head with his fists multiple times and said he was going to teach her a lesson. He stabbed her in the neck and upper chest and repeatedly cut her neck, only just missing major blood vessels. In fighting him off she received defensive injuries. He then left her to bleed to death. He took her handbag with her mobile phone in it and when someone rang for her the next day, he said: "She's dead."

Ruth had emergency surgery to repair the wounds. Her injuries took a year to heal internally. She experienced severe pain for which she had to take painkillers and she lost sensation around her neck and arms. She was on long term sick leave from her job as a social worker, losing earnings as a result. The psychological effect of the attack was significant. She was constantly fearful. She could no longer visit clients as part of her work. She struggled to go to work and to drive. She was afraid to be alone at night. She had flashbacks and nightmares. Her children also became fearful of going out or being in the house alone. The attack also made Tadiwa very afraid and she had to move away from her aunt and uncle to a secret location which has caused her financial, social and professional difficulties.

It was agreed by both counsel that the offence came within level 1 of the sentencing guidelines for attempted murder and that, if this had been a murder, paragraph 5A of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 would have applied, with a starting point of 25 years. Applying the guidelines, and factoring in paragraph 5A, the judge found that Ruth had suffered serious, but not long term, physical and psychological harm and imposed a sentence of 22 years' imprisonment.

The applicant does not seek to challenge the lawfulness of the sentence of 22 years, only the finding of dangerousness. The ground of appeal is that the judge was wrong to conclude that the applicant posed a serious risk of substantial harm to members of the public under section 226 Criminal Justice Act 2003. He had no relevant previous convictions and no history of violence. He had been greatly affected by the loss of contact with his daughter. The psychiatric report of Dr Blackwood stated that he was suffering from depression and was on medication. He was drinking heavily and had stopped work. He had formed an irrational dislike for Ruth whom he blamed for the loss of his daughter. The attack was out of character as his previous history and character references demonstrated. He was remorseful after the attack and handed himself in to the police.

In our judgment, there was ample material upon which the judge could properly conclude that the applicant posed a serious risk of substantial harm to members of the public. It is apparent from his detailed sentencing remarks that he took into account all the relevant material, including Dr Blackwood's report and the points made by counsel in mitigation. The judge was entitled to rely on the pre-sentence report which was thorough and professional. The criticisms in the report were unjustified. Although the author did not have Dr Blackwood's report, she fully recorded the applicant's mental state, including his hallucinations, depression and his anti-depressant medication. In our view Dr Blackwood's report would not have altered her assessment.

The author of the PSR concluded that these were pre-planned offences. The applicant resorted to attempted murder when criminal damage and stalking did not achieve the desired effect of gaining control of Tadiwa and A. The offences were serious, harmful and sustained, sending a clear message to his victims that he was able to harm them emotionally and physically when they did not act as he wished. He was currently focusing on Tadiwa and her behaviour towards him. It would require high levels of intervention to enable him to start to explore his distorted thinking and behaviour.

In the PSR he was assessed at a high risk of re-offending. He was also assessed at a high risk of serious harm to Tadiwa, Ruth and any future partner who tried to end a relationship with him.

The judge had the benefit of presiding over the applicant's trial and hearing evidence from the victim. He was satisfied that there was a significant risk that the applicant would commit further specified offences and by doing so cause serious harm to others. He referred in particular to the ferocity of the attack, the calculated way in which the applicant set about trying to kill Ruth and his irrational anger towards Ruth, caused by his desire to get his own way and to be in control. The judge concluded there was every likelihood that he would react in the same way again in future if the circumstances arose.

In our judgment the judge was entitled to reach the conclusion that the applicant was dangerous within the meaning of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The sentence passed was a proper one. For these reasons the application for leave to appeal is refused.