R v Ioan Budea

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

On 15 September 2023, in the Crown Court at Northampton, the applicant (who is now 57 years old) was sentenced by His Honour Gregory Dickinson KC (sitting as a Deputy Circuit Judge) for offences of attempted murder (count 2); wounding with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 (count 4); and having an article with a blade or point in a public place (count 1). He had been convicted by the jury of the attempted murder after a trial. He had pleaded guilty to the other two offences.

For the attempted murder, the judge imposed an extended determinate sentence of 17 years, comprising a custodial term of 15 years and an extended licence period of two years. For the offence of section 18 wounding with intent, the judge imposed a consecutive extended determinate sentence of six years' imprisonment, comprising a custodial term of five years and an extended licence period of one year. For the offence of having an article with a blade or point, the judge imposed a concurrent term of 12 months' imprisonment. The total custodial term was, therefore, 20 years' imprisonment, with an extended licence period of three years.

The applicant, acting in person, lodged his own grounds of appeal against sentence, but substantially out of time. He requires an extension of 251 days in which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence. He indicates in his appeal notice that he had been advised that he had no grounds for an appeal and had not appreciated that he could lodge an application for leave himself. Although no good reason has been shown for such a long delay, we have nevertheless considered the merits of the proposed appeal.

There was a domestic background to the offences. The applicant had been in a relationship with the complainant, Marina Afonina, for around 15 years, but their relationship had ended in December 2021. Following the separation, she lived with her mother and a lodger. However, she continued to see the applicant from time to time as they both worked in the same department at the local hospital. Generally, they got along; but in early August 2022 the applicant's behaviour towards her deteriorated, which led her to block his mobile phone. He had been sending her abusive text messages.Between 5 and 15 August the applicant made 69 phone calls to her number, all of which went unanswered.

The offences took place on 13 August 2022. Ms Afonina was working at the hospital that morning on the early shift. The applicant was not due to start work until 2 pm. He attended the hospital looking for Ms Afonina. He was carrying a rucksack in which was concealed a very large kitchen knife. He appeared to be unsteady on his feet and affected by alcohol. At around 2 pm he burst into an office at the hospital, frantically asking where Ms Afonina was. He saw her there and began to cry and to apologise. She sat with him for a short time, before he picked up his rucksack and rushed out of the door.

As Ms Afonina walked home a little later, she saw the applicant at a bus stop. She sat down with him briefly and told him to go and recover "from the drink" (as she put it). He was abusive to her. She crossed the road. He followed her and said that he wanted to walk with her, but she refused. What followed was captured on CCTV and was also seen by the other victim of the offences, Joseph Tipler. He and his sister were getting into their parked car nearby. The applicant reached into his rucksack, removed the knife and attacked Ms Afonina with it. He made at least six distinct thrusts down towards her. She quickly collapsed to the ground. The applicant got on top of her with the knife in order to continue the attack. By the jury's verdict, he intended to kill her.

It was at that point that Mr Tipler got out of his vehicle and very bravely ran at the applicant to intervene. He pulled the applicant off Ms Afonina, but as he did so the applicant turned and slashed at Mr Tipler with the knife. Mr Tipler fell backwards. The applicant advanced on him with the knife raised and made at least one further deliberate strike with the knife towards him. Mr Tipler managed to get up and run away. Ms Afonina had also managed to get to her feet and she ran towards the hospital. The applicant then stabbed himself in the neck in an attempt to kill himself.

Ms Afonina had been stabbed seven times to the left shoulder, left arm and under her left breast. She was released from hospital the following day.

Mr Tipler received a gaping wound to the left lower arm. He was released from hospital the same day.

The applicant received life-saving surgery to his neck.

When he was arrested two days later, the applicant declined to answer any questions in interview.

The applicant had previous convictions. They included possession of a knife in 2008, for which he had received a community order. He had subsequently breached that order on two occasions in 2009.

The author of the pre-sentence report assessed the applicant as presenting a high risk of serious harm to the public.

Psychiatric reports had been obtained before trial on the issue of the applicant's possible amnesia in relation to the incident. There was no suggestion that any form of psychiatric disposal should be considered when it came to sentence.

The judge had the benefit of a detailed sentencing notes from prosecution and defence to assist him in relation to categorisation of the offences under the relevant Sentencing Council guidelines and whether the sentences should be concurrent or consecutive.

In his sentencing remarks, the judge set our clearly and comprehensively all his factual findings on the relevant issues. He observed that in convicting the applicant of attempted murder, the jury were sure that he intended to kill Ms Afonina and to inflict much greater harm than in fact he did. The judge noted that the blows were aimed at the left side of her upper body, but her efforts to defend herself meant that the blade of the knife struck her on the arm more than the torso.

The judge concluded that under the guideline, the attempted murder was an offence of level B high culpability, because the applicant took a knife to the scene, intending to have it available to use as a weapon and had used it to commit the offence. Harm was category 3. The starting point under the guideline was therefore 20 years' custody, with a range of 15 to 25 years. The judge found that the domestic background was an aggravating factor, as was the commission of the offence under the influence of alcohol.

Mitigating factors included the applicant's limited previous convictions and his genuine remorse. The judge noted that there was no history of actual violence towards Ms Afonina. The judge said that if the attempted murder had stood alone, the sentence after trial would have been 18 years' imprisonment.

The section 18 wounding with intent was a category 3A offence under the relevant guideline, with level A high culpability because of the use of the knife. The fortuitous lack of very serious permanent injury caused to Mr Tipler, despite the applicant's intention to cause him grievous bodily harm, meant that it was category 3 harm. The starting point under the guideline was five years' custody, with a range of four to seven years.

It was a very significant aggravating feature that the s.18 offence was committed against a member of the public who instinctively and bravely intervened to protect Ms Afonina in order to save her life. This, and the fact that the applicant intended to cause Mr Tipler much more serious injury than in fact he did, meant that the offence moved to the top of the category range. Had it stood alone, the sentence would have been seven years' imprisonment after a trial. As the applicant had pleaded guilty to this offence, he was entitled to appropriate credit of 25 per cent, reducing that sentence, had it stood alone, to five years and three months' imprisonment.

The judge gave very careful consideration to whether the sentences should be ordered to run concurrently or consecutively. The judge had regard to the relevant Sentencing Council guideline on totality which states that consecutive sentences will ordinarily be appropriate where offences committed in the same incident are distinct, involving an aggravating element that requires separate recognition. An example would be an assault on a police officer, where an offender is trying to run away after committing a separate offence. The judge concluded that the situation in the present case was analogous to that example and that consecutive sentences were required, subject to adjustment for totality.

The separate appropriate consecutive sentence of 15 years' imprisonment on count 2 and five years and three months' imprisonment on count 4 would have produced a custodial term of 23 years and three months in total. To reflect the principle of totality, the judge made a substantial reduction. He reduced the sentence for the attempted murder from 18 years to 15 years, and the sentence for the section 18 wounding with intent by three months to five years. The total reduction was, therefore, three years and three months.

Turning to the issue of dangerousness and whether an extended sentence was required, the judge considered very carefully all the relevant evidence and information before him. The pre-sentence report indicted a high risk of serious harm to Ms Afonina and to future partners of the applicant and to the public, although the risk of reconviction was assessed as low.

The psychiatric reports noted a pattern of excessive drinking and a history of anxiety and depression. The premeditated use of a knife against an unarmed woman in the street, then turning the knife on to a member of the public who intervened, and finally on to himself, led the judge to the sure conclusion that there was a significant risk of serious harm to members of the public from the commission by the applicant of further specified offences. The judge therefore imposed the two consecutive extended sentences we have described.

In his proposed grounds of appeal the applicant suggests that the total custodial term of 20 years was too long, bearing in mind his previous good character, his age and his guilty plea to the section 18 wounding. He suggests that a custodial term of 15 years, without an extended licence period, would have been, as he puts it, "more appropriate".

We agree with the single judge that there is no arguable merit in this proposed appeal. The judge's categorisation of the attempted murder and section 18 wounding cannot be faulted. The judge's approach to consecutive sentence was entirely correct in principle The judge faithfully applied the principle of totality in reducing the overall custodial term to 20 years. The judge was fully justified in concluding that the statutory threshold of dangerousness was met and that an extended sentence was required for the protection of the public.

It is not arguable that any of the judge's assessments or conclusions was wrong. On the contrary, his analysis of the issues and the exposition of his reasoning were immaculate.

Accordingly, it is not arguable that the applicant's sentence was manifestly excessive or in any way wrong in principle.

For all these reasons we refuse the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence and we refuse the application for an extension of time.