R v Connor Patrick Dillon

The appellant appeals, with leave, against a total sentence of 2 years' imprisonment, imposed in relation to three counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act and one count of possession of a knife in a public place, contrary to section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act.

On 28 February 2025, the three complainants Craig Carter, Aiden Cocksey and Anthony Ferguson were drinking at the Bee Hive public house in Droylesden. At about 1.00 am they decided to leave and walked past the crowded bar towards the exit. As they left Mr Carter accidentally bumped into the appellant and the appellant accidentally stood on Mr Carter's trainers. Mr Carter said: "Fucking hell mate, watch my trainers". He said this was said in a joking manner. In response the appellant said: "Your trainers are 35 quid, mine are 300. I'll slash you, you cunt." He repeated: "I will slash you". Mr Cocksey and Mr Ferguson had already exited the bar. Mr Carter joined them outside and told them what had happened. They began to walk away. Mr Carter heard a man shouting from behind a fence. He looked over the fence and recognised the appellant. The appellant then spoke and argued with the three complainants before reaching over into his pocket and pulling out a blade. He then deliberately slashed all three complainants to the face with the blade. He was arrested and interviewed and he said he was highly intoxicated through drink and did not remember the incident. He pleaded guilty to the counts before Bolton Magistrates' Court on 3 March 2025 and was committed to the Crown Court at Minshull Street Manchester for sentence on 23 July 2025.

The Recorder described the facts as disturbing, with the appellant displaying immediate aggression after a seemingly innocuous incident. He said he had viewed the CCTV footage of the accident, and it was, on any fair view, a violent and potentially very dangerous incident, during the course of which the victims were extremely fortunate that more serious injury was not caused.

The Recorder applied the guideline for assault occasioning actual bodily harm and considered the case of R v O’Bryan [2021] EWCA Crim 1472, which had been put before him by defence counsel. He considered the knife was a "dangerous" weapon that fell not far short of a "highly dangerous" weapon before going on to categorise the offending as A3 or B2 in each case, with a starting point of 36 weeks and upper end of 18 months. He identified aggravating features as the presence of alcohol and the lengthy record of previous convictions which he said: “were littered with examples of aggressive and violent behaviour".

Mitigation included a dreadful childhood, going into care and some evidence of untreated mental health problems. The Recorder observed that there was little evidence to support the appellant’s assertion that he was going to mend his ways and said as follows:

The Recorder went on to explain that he considered it appropriate to go beyond the normal sentencing range in this case because he would have considered the appellant dangerous had it not been that the appellant was only charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Full credit for a guilty plea was given, and the Recorder took a starting point of 3 years in relation to each of the assaults, each to run concurrently and reduced to 2 years to reflect credit. He also imposed a 12-month concurrent sentence in relation to the bladed article.

On behalf of the appellant, it is submitted that the starting point for each of the assault offences was too high being double the category range nor was it clear how the Recorder reached the starting point. The Recorder found the knife used was "dangerous" but fell short of "highly dangerous" but there was then unclear as to how he categorised the offending within the relevant guidelines. In oral submissions before us Ms Shaw has emphasised there was no evidence that the knife was a "highly dangerous" weapon and the Recorder failed to take account of totality.

We are grateful to Ms Shaw for her succinct and clear submissions.

The Definitive Guideline states that "highly dangerous" weapons can include knives and that the court must determine whether the weapon or weapon equivalent is highly dangerous on the facts and circumstances of the case. At the sentencing hearing the defence put the case of R v O'Bryan [2021] EWCA Crim 1472 before the Recorder, in which the court included that the knife used in that case was to be appropriately categorised as a "dangerous" rather than a "highly dangerous" weapon, in part because the knife had not been recovered, as is the position here. However, as the relevant guideline makes clear, a decision on categorisation of a weapon as "dangerous" or "highly dangerous" is a fact specific assessment. In our assessment the knife used in this case is appropriately categorised as a "highly dangerous" weapon. As the Recorder said, the scar on the face of one of the victims runs from his mouth to his ear. Had the victim not moved out of the way the knife would have opened up his face. Whilst the knife was not recovered, we have viewed the CCTV footage of the incident and considered the photographs of the injuries to the victims. We consider they provide sufficient evidence for us to reach our view on the appropriate classification. Furthermore, having seen the photographs of the injuries it may be said that the Crown was generous at the sentencing hearing to suggest that Harm was category 3. Another court may well have found these were A2 offences with a starting point of 18 months and a range of up to 2½ years.

Accepting for present purposes that the appropriate characterisation is A3 in the guideline, then this has a starting point of 36 weeks' custody, and the upper end of the range is 18 months. The appellant deliberately slashed at the face and the head of three victims. Given the previous history of violence and his intoxication, a sentence at the top of the range of 18 months for a single offence would have been justified and here there were three offences with three victims. It follows that we reject the submission that the sentence is manifestly excessive.

The appeal is dismissed.