R v Levi Wilson

This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence following refusal by the single judge.

On 26 January 2024, following a trial in the Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames before Her Honour Judge Anne Brown and a jury, the applicant (now 26 years of age) was convicted of four offences: criminal damage (count 4); threatening with an offensive weapon, contrary to section 52 of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 (count 7); wounding with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (count 8); and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to section 47 of the 1861 Act (count 10). He had pleaded guilty at the start of the trial to an offence of disclosing a sexual photograph or film without consent, contrary to section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. He was acquitted by the jury of several other offences.

On 11 April 2024, the applicant was sentenced by the trial judge. She took as the lead offence count 8 (section 18 wounding with intent) and reflected the criminality of all the offences in the length of the custodial term for that offence. On count 8 she imposed an extended determinate sentence, pursuant to section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020, comprising a custodial term of eight years and an extended licence period of four years. On the other counts the judge imposed concurrent determinate sentences: on count 4 (criminal damage), one month's imprisonment; on count 7 (threatening with an offensive weapon), 18 months' imprisonment; on count 10 (section 47 assault occasioning actual bodily harm), two years six months' imprisonment; and for the disclosure of a sexual photograph or film, three months' imprisonment. The applicant was also made the subject of a restraining order for a period of ten years.

The proposed grounds of appeal originally settled by trial counsel, Mr Fooks, challenged both the length of the custodial term and the imposition of the extended sentence. In renewing the application for leave to the full court, the applicant purported to indicate on the prescribed form how much of the sentence he wished to continue to challenge. We interpreted his indication as saying that he wished to appeal only against the imposition of the extended sentence, not the length of the custodial term. Mr Fooks, who appears on behalf of the applicant this morning pro bono, for which we are extremely grateful, has explained that there may have been a misunderstanding between himself and the applicant's solicitors, because it had always his (Mr Fooks') intention to renew the application for leave in respect of the length of the custodial term as well as the imposition of the extended sentence. Whatever the position may be technically as to the need for leave today to renew on all grounds, we have proceeded on the basis that the challenge to both elements is maintained.

The offences all arose in a domestic context from the applicant's long-term, on-off relationship with his ex girlfriend, Macey Gregory. She is the mother of their two young children. There was a history of domestic violence and upset some years ago. By April 2023, when the first offence in time was committed, the applicant and Ms Gregory were living in separate households, but he was jealous of any relationship she had, or appeared to have, with other men.

On 2 April 2023, there was an argument between the applicant and Ms Gregory at her home, where he had been staying overnight. It took place as he was leaving. In the course of the argument, the applicant snapped the handlebars of her electronic scooter, took her mobile phone and smashed it against the front door, damaging both the phone and the door. He stamped on the phone before leaving. The value of the damage was in excess of £1200. That was count 4.

The next offence in time was count 5, to which the applicant had pleaded guilty, sending sexual images and videos to Ms Gregory's mother of Ms Gregory herself. The applicant had downloaded the contents in their entirety it would seem of her phone and tablet to his own phone. That offence occurred on 12 May 2023.

The remaining three counts all arose from events on the night of 26 July 2023. The applicant became aware from Facebook messages on Ms Gregory's phone that her plans for the evening included inviting a man called Jay Harvey over to her home. A female neighbour was also there for a time. Ms Gregory and Mr Harvey were apparently drinking and taking cocaine. The two young children were asleep in bed. The applicant went over to Ms Gregory's address and waited outside the flat. Shortly after the neighbour left, the applicant entered the flat over the balcony and rushed inside. He picked up a knife and immediately began to threaten Mr Harvey with the knife . That was count 7.

The applicant then attacked Mr Harvey. He ran at him, swinging the knife. Mr Harvey fell to his knees, holding his hands above his head, pleading for his life. The applicant slashed at Mr Harvey, twice to the right arm and once to the back of the head, and then stabbed him in the upper leg and buttock, causing a deep wound. Mr Harvey managed to flee from the flat and summon help. We have seen the police bodycam footage of the injuries, which were bleeding very heavily. Fortunately, they proved not to have been as serious as they appeared. They could clearly have been very much worse . That was count 8, the section 18 wounding.

Meanwhile, whilst the applicant had been attacking Mr Harvey, Ms Gregory had been shouting at the applicant, pleading with him to stop the attack and telling him that the children were in the flat. The applicant's response was to set about Ms Gregory as well, punching and kicking her. She curled up in a ball on the floor, telling him to stop. When she made to get up to go and check on the children, the applicant told her she was going nowhere. He then hit her hard on the side of the head, sending her to the floor for a second time. He continued to kick and punch her on the floor. She estimated that went on for 20 seconds or so, with five to ten kicks and punches. She was so frightened that she wet herself. She was left with bruising, a black eye, a cut to the nose and a chipped tooth. We have seen photographs of her injuries. That was count 10, the section 47 assault.

When he was arrested and interviewed, the applicant suggested in a prepared statement that he had not caused the damage in April, and that he had acted in self-defence in the incident on 26 July. However, at his trial the applicant did not give evidence himself. The account that he had given in his prepared statement was the account put to witnesses by Mr Fooks on the applicant's instructions.

The applicant had relevant previous convictions. In 2015, aged 16, he was cautioned for possessing an offensive weapon in a public place. In August 2016, aged 17, he was convicted of an offence of section 20 inflicting grievous bodily harm, when he and two others kicked a man on the street, causing a fracture to the man's jaw. That appears to have been some form of neighbour dispute; it did not involve Ms Gregory. In April 2017 for that offence the applicant received a suspended sentence of two years' detention, suspended for two years, with an unpaid work requirement.

In March 2019 the applicant breached the suspended sentence by committing an offence of criminal damage which took place at Ms Gregory’s address, following an argument. She was trying to drive away from the applicant, but he kicked the wing mirror of her car. He was conditionally discharged on that occasion, and the suspended sentence was allowed to continue.

In June 2019, for an offence of theft, the applicant received a further suspended sentence of 18 weeks’ detention, suspended for 2 years. He breached that suspended sentence only a month later in July 2019, when he committed an offence of battery by punching Ms Gregory on the head, causing cuts to her mouth. There was a second breach of this suspended sentence in November 2019, when he committed an offence of criminal damage at Ms Gregory's home address. She had refused to open the front door to him, in response to which he kicked the door and smashed part of a double-glazed window. When he was dealt with for these two breaches in January 2020 the suspended sentence was activated in part for a period of 12 weeks. That was the first time the applicant had actually served a sentence of imprisonment.

In a victim personal statement, Mr Harvey described the significant psychological impact. He said that he was afraid all the time. The attack had knocked his confidence altogether. He had been unable to return to any full-time work; he had been a scaffolder. He felt dependent on family members.

The impact of the offences upon Ms Gregory was rather more difficult to assess. As so often in cases with a theme of domestic violence, there was a degree of blowing hot and cold on her part. In her initial statement of complaint following the offences of 26 July 2023, she said that she did not feel safe going out with the children for fear that the applicant might attack her. She felt down and insecure. By the time of the sentencing hearing, Ms Gregory's attitude towards the applicant had softened considerably. That had been the position at trial as well. She even wrote to the sentencing judge asking for leniency, realising (as she put it) how toxic she and the applicant were to each other. She said that she was convinced that she had learnt his lesson from his period in custody on remand, and she described her concern about the impact on the children of a long separation from their father.

The author of the pre-sentence report expressed the view that the applicant presented a high risk of further harm, although the report was unspecific on the precise nature and extent of that harm.

In her sentencing remarks, the judge referred to all the relevant Sentencing Council guidelines for the various offences with which she had to deal. She found that for the section 18 offence there was high culpability through the use of a highly dangerous weapon, and a significant degree of planning or premeditation. The applicant had gone to Ms Gregory's address that night, having read her messages, and then waited until the neighbour left, before rushing in and committing the offences. Because, fortuitously, the injuries were not as serious as they might have been, this was category 3 harm. The guideline starting point was, therefore, five years' custody, with a range of four to seven years. The offence was aggravated by the applicant's relevant previous convictions and by the wider domestic context.

The judge found that for the section 47 assault on Ms Gregory, there was again high culpability because of the significant degree of planning or premeditation, and because of her obvious vulnerability due to her circumstances. The assault took place in the middle of the night when her children were asleep, and there was a history of violence towards her. There was category 2 harm. The guideline starting point was therefore 18 months' custody, with a range up to two and a half years.

The judge also assessed the other offences by reference to the applicable guidelines and concluded that for count 4 (criminal damage) a sentence of one month's imprisonment was appropriate; for count 7 (threatening with a knife), 18 months' imprisonment; and for count 5 (disclosure of the photograph), three months' imprisonment. All of these sentences were ordered to run concurrently with each other and, as she explained, their seriousness was reflected in the custodial term of eight years for the lead offence, count 8, the section 18 wounding.

Turning to the issue of dangerousness, the judge reviewed the relevant factors. The applicant had burst into Ms Gregory's home in the middle of the night when the children were asleep in bed, and had immediately armed himself with a knife with which he slashed and stabbed Mr Harvey, before he turned on Ms Gregory and assaulted her with fists and feet. The judge concluded that the physical impact of the applicant's actions could have been devastating. He was completely out of control on that occasion. The psychological impact on the two victims had been significant and could also have been devastating. Viewed against the context of his previous behaviour, including the section 20 offence which had resulted in a broken jaw, and the pattern of offending against Ms Gregory, the judge was satisfied that there was a risk of serious harm to the public from further specified offences that the applicant might commit. The danger that the applicant posed was towards Ms Gregory and any male who became close to her.

The judge concluded that an extended sentence was necessary for the protection of those members of the public; a determinate sentence would not provide the necessary protection. The judge therefore imposed an extended sentence with a custodial term of eight years, and an extension period of four years.

We are grateful to Mr Fooks for his oral submissions this morning. He appears on behalf of the applicant pro bono in the very best traditions of the Bar. Mr Fooks submits that the extended sentence of 12 years was simply too long and was manifestly excessive. He submits that the custodial term of eight years for the section 18 wounding was too long, even accepting that it was intended to represent the overall criminality of all the offences. He submits that the judge was wrong to assess either the section 18 offence or the section 47 assault as high culpability offences. He moderated his submissions, realistically if we may say so, by not submitting that an extended sentence was wrong in principle, although he reminds us, as he reminded the judge, that there were significant signs of a change of attitude on the part of the applicant since his remand in custody. By the time of sentence, he had been in custody for several months. He had co-operated fully with the prison regime. He had suffered a bereavement of a fellow prisoner, and had been advised to see a psychologist himself because of the impact of that trauma upon him. He had helped another fellow prisoner in need of medical attention. He was doing his best to adapt himself properly whilst in custody and make good use of his time in prison. Mr Fooks told us that the applicant has also attended anger management courses, which is to his credit.

Despite Mr Fooks' valiant submissions, we are quite satisfied, as was the single judge, that there is no arguable ground of appeal here. The judge had heard all the evidence and was best placed to make her own assessment of the applicant's culpability and the harm caused by his offending. She was best placed to assess the applicant's temperament and attitude. For the reasons she gave, there was ample material from which to conclude that the threshold of dangerousness was met and that an extended sentence was necessary to protect that section of the public which she identified.

Against the background of the applicant's previous offending, and his failure to comply with the requirements of the suspended sentence, it was proportionate to impose an extension period of four years in order to monitor and mitigate the risk of further offending by the applicant on his release. We are sure that the judge had very much in mind, in imposing as long a period of extension as she did, the nature of the relationship between the applicant and Ms Gregory, and the likelihood, if not inevitability, of some further trouble between them in the future, which needed to be kept carefully under observation.

So far as the length of the custodial term is concerned, we are quite satisfied that the judge was fully entitled to impose the sentence that she did.

Accordingly, for all these reasons, the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.