R v Steven Corner

On 17 October 2024 in the Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne before HHJ Paul Sloan KC, the applicant, Steven Corner, then aged 53, pleaded guilty on re-arraignment to one count of attempted murder and one count of having an article with a blade or point.

On 6 December 2024 at the same court, HHJ Sloan KC sentenced the applicant for the attempted murder to 20 years' imprisonment and for the bladed article offence to 12 months' imprisonment, to be served concurrently.

The applicant renews his application for leave to appeal his sentence following the refusal of the single judge.

The applicant was represented at his sentencing hearing by Mr Sailesh Mehta. He is represented before us on this application by Mr J Smith who appears pro bono. We are grateful for his assistance.

The Crown Prosecution Service has filed a Respondent's Notice opposing the application, which was received after the single judge refused permission to appeal.

The complainant, Ms Sarah Coulson, who was aged 50 at the time of the offences, was the applicant's partner. They had been in a relationship for four years and lived together on Bisley Drive in South Shields. Ms Coulson described the relationship as being good until the applicant lost his job around 12 months prior to the offences, developing anxiety and beginning regularly to drink to excess.

On one occasion in December 2023, Ms Coulson was about to leave home to visit her brother when the applicant asked what she was doing, took hold of her by the shoulders, and swung her around to stop her leaving. Ms Coulson said, "don't do that to me". She got past the applicant. She stayed away from home for three days because of the applicant's bizarre and unnerving behaviour.

On another occasion, on Christmas Eve 2023, Ms Coulson did not want to allow the applicant into the house because of his erratic behaviour, but he forced his way inside, pushing the front door open. He did not punch or slap Ms Coulson during these incidents, but he did "manhandle" her.

From 27 December 2023 to 4 January 2024, the applicant spent time at a residential alcohol rehabilitation facility. He then returned home and was supposed to abstain from alcohol.

On Friday night, 19 January 2024, a little over two weeks after he came home from the rehabilitation facility, he began drinking again, apparently because he was alarmed and anxious after having received a letter about a driving offence. He drank through the night.

When the applicant woke up on Saturday morning, 20 January 2024, Ms Coulson could smell alcohol on him. She confronted him about it. She reminded him of her warning when he first returned from the rehabilitation facility that if he drank again, that would be the end of their relationship. She insisted that he take an alcohol test from a tester kit that she had. The test confirmed that he had been drinking. She reminded him again of the warning she had previously given him, and she told him that their relationship was over. She said that the house would be put up for sale on the Monday. She also said that she wanted to live together amicably with him until the house was sold, but, unless he remained sober and reasonable, that arrangement would not work. The applicant tried to placate her, but he appeared to recognise that she was resolute.

At around 3.00 pm that day Ms Coulson went upstairs and into her daughter's bedroom. She wedged some slippers under the door and placed some step ladders against the door to prevent the applicant entering. She was not then worried that he would attack her, but she wanted to be alone and away from him.

At around 5.00 or 6.00 pm, Ms Coulson went downstairs for a cup of tea. She could tell the applicant had been drinking. He was slurring his words. She found a case of beer. She said, "You're drunk. Please don't drink anymore." She saw that the bin was alight in the kitchen. Ms Coulson suspected that the applicant had lit the fire as a ploy to force her to come out of the bedroom by setting off the fire alarm. She told him that continuing to live together was not going to work, and the sooner the relationship was over the better.

The applicant asked Ms Coulson if she thought he had more alcohol hidden away and invited her to check the bedroom, forcefully pushing her into the hallway. Ms Coulson thought that he wanted her out of the kitchen as he was hiding alcohol there, so she pretended to go upstairs but hid around the corner so that she could see the applicant. She then saw him lean into a cupboard where the knives were kept, and she saw that when he returned to the kitchen door, he was carrying an eight-inch kitchen knife with a black handle.

The applicant saw Ms Coulson and said, "I'm not going to let you go Sarah". He spoke in a deadpan tone. She had a mobile phone in hand. She tried to unlock it to call for help, but he grabbed it from her. She thought he was only trying to scare her, but she was indeed scared. She turned and ran out the front door, which was open. She ran out of the garden and across the street, pursued by the applicant. He managed to stab her in the back twice. She fell to the ground, and he was then on top of her, possibly kneeling on her, stabbing her repeatedly to her arms. As he did this, she screamed, “help me" and "Steve, I've got a daughter, please don't do this." She later described him as stabbing her "ferociously".

A neighbour, Ms Kaye Connolly, saw what was happening and ran towards them, shouting at the applicant to get off of her. Ms Connolly also told the applicant that she was phoning the police. Another neighbour, Mr William Harrison, also arrived and confronted the applicant, pushing his left shoulder and shouting at him. The applicant stumbled backwards, appeared angry with a "glazed look" and then calmly walked back into the house that he shared with Ms Coulson. Ms Coulson was later to state her belief that if the neighbours had not intervened, the applicant would have succeeded in killing her.

The emergency services arrived, and Ms Coulson was taken to the Royal Victoria Hospital. She had suffered a minimum of seven knife injuries and a fracture of her right little finger. None of the knife injuries was deep enough to breach a body cavity but missed doing so only by a matter of millimetres. Ms Coulson's injuries were initially treated conservatively with stitches and a splint. On re-assessment a week later, however, further intervention was deemed necessary. Ms Coulson underwent surgery under general anaesthesia to close the four wounds to her left arm and surgery to the forearm to ensure that there was no nerve injury and to repair a nerve. She also had to have further treatment of the fracture of the little finger. She was left with permanent scarring and a mild deformity of her little finger, although no pain or loss of function.

The applicant fled after committing the offences, hiding in a coal shed, then in a greenhouse, before making his way to his caravan at a caravan park in South Shields, where he was arrested on Sunday, 21 January 2024, the day after the attack.

The applicant answered “no comment” to questions put to him during his police interview.

The police subsequently seized the knife from the kitchen of the house shared by Ms Coulson and the applicant, which was found to have fatty tissue on it matching Ms Coulson's DNA profile.

The applicant had no prior convictions.

At the sentencing hearing on 6 December 2024, HHJ Sloan KC had the benefit of:

Having summarised the factual background, the judge noted that Ms Coulson's victim personal statement showed that the attack on her not only had lasting physical effects but also had a very significant psychological effect. She was left feeling broken and unable to function. She was unable to return to work for six months. Her strength, resilience, and confidence were lost. The judge commented that the physical and emotional scars of the applicant's attack on Ms Coulson would be life-long.

The judge took note of the applicant's letter to him, the references provided for him by various relatives, his counsel's mitigation note, as well as the oral mitigation that had been advanced by Mr Mehta. He also had regard to the contents of the psychiatric reports of Dr Chakrabarti and Dr Kahtan.

The judge concluded in light of the timing of the applicant's pleas of guilty that the applicant was entitled to credit of between 10 and 15 per cent and indicated that he would give credit of a little over 13 per cent for each plea.

In relation to other mitigation, the judge noted that the applicant had no previous convictions, with positive good character as spoken to in the references provided on his behalf. The judge considered that the offence of attempted murder did not involve significant planning or premeditation, although there was a degree of premeditation. The judge bore in mind that although the knife was taken out of the house and therefore to the scene for sentencing purposes, the applicant had carried the knife a relatively short distance from the house to the place where he attacked Ms Coulson, and the judge indicated that he would take that fact into account in the applicant's favour. The judge noted the applicant's background as a university graduate who had been employed most of his adult life, including in recent years as a college lecturer. The judge noted the applicant's service in the Royal Marine Reserves. The judge accepted that the appellant had shown genuine remorse.

The judge had regard to the Sentencing Council guideline on sentencing offenders with mental disorders. He noted that the applicant had suffered with anxiety and depression, particularly in connection with work, and relating to his physical health. The judge did not consider that there was evidence of mental illness sufficient to reduce the applicant's culpability for his offences, and he noted that the mental health issues the applicant suffered from were exacerbated by the applicant's voluntary consumption of alcohol. Nonetheless, the judge accepted that the applicant's mental health issues provided him with some limited mitigation. Finally, the judge noted that the applicant had been making good use of his time on remand in custody.

In relation to the attempted murder, the judge had regard to the Sentencing Council guideline on attempted murder and the guideline on domestic abuse. Having regard to the attempted murder guideline the judge found that the applicant's offence fell into culpability category B (high culpability) given that he had taken a knife to the scene and went on to use it to commit the offence. But the judge bore in mind, as he had indicated he would, that the applicant had carried the knife a relatively short distance to where he committed the offence outside the house.

The judge found that the offence fell into harm category 2 because it involved serious physical or psychological harm not in category 1. As a category B2 offence, the starting point for sentence was 25 years' custody with a category range of 20 to 30 years' custody.

Before considering aggravating and mitigating factors, the judge indicated that he would reduce the notional sentence from the starting point of 25 years to reflect the relatively short distance over which the knife was carried.

The judge found that the aggravating factors were the applicant’s being voluntarily intoxicated at the time of the offence, despite knowing the detrimental effect that alcohol was having on his relationship and on his physical and mental health. The offence was committed in a domestic context and was an abuse of both trust and power against Ms Coulson in a place where she should have been safe. The applicant had grabbed Ms Coulson's phone to prevent her reporting the applicant's behaviour or obtaining assistance, and this was a further aggravating factor. Another aggravating factor was that the stabbing occurred in a public place in the presence of neighbours who came upon the scene, and there was further aggravation in the fact that the applicant persisted in his attack notwithstanding pleas to stop from Ms Coulson and even after the initial intervention of neighbours. The judge took account of the mitigation that we have already summarised.

In relation to the bladed article offence, the judge categorised the applicant's offence as falling within category A1 of the relevant guideline with a starting point of 18 months' custody and a category range of one year to two-and-a-half years' custody. The judge noted that the sentence for this offence would be imposed concurrently with the sentence for the principal offence, given that he had taken the knife offence into account as an aggravating factor in relation to the attempted murder.

As to dangerousness, the judge was not satisfied that there was a significant risk of the applicant committing further specified offences, and he indicated that in his judgment a significant determinate sentence would provide sufficient protection for the public. Taking all matters into account, including credit for the applicant's guilty plea, the judge imposed the sentences that we have already indicated. He also made an indefinite restraining order to protect Ms Coulson and a deprivation order in relation to the knife.

In his written submissions in support of the grounds of appeal, Mr Mehta submitted that the judge failed to give any or sufficient weight to the cumulative effect of all of the mitigation in the applicant's favour. He submitted that the court failed to give sufficient weight to the applicant's mental health difficulties when assessing culpability, especially having regard to the conclusions of Dr Kahtan. Mr Mehta also submitted that, although conceding that the judge was right to conclude that the applicant had taken the knife to the scene as that is understood in the relevant case law, the judge did not sufficiently reduce the sentence to reflect the short distance over which the applicant had carried the knife. Finally, in the written submissions, Mr Mehta submitted that the judge was wrong to conclude that the attempted murder involved category 2 harm, rather than lesser harm falling between category 2 and category 3.

Before us today, Mr Smith adopted Mr Mehta’s written submissions and developed them, principally to by reference to various passages in Dr Kahtan’s report. He noted, in particular, Dr Kahtan’s conclusions about the effect of the applicant’s mental health difficulties about the time of the offence and drew our attention to Dr Kahtan’s suggestion in the report that if those mental health difficulties had been addressed at an earlier stage, this offence might well not have occurred.

In refusing permission to appeal on a review of the papers, the single judge gave the following reasons:

Having considered all of the papers, including the two reports and addenda of the two consultant forensic psychiatrists, as well as the respondent's notice, which was received by the Criminal Appeal Office after the single judge had made his decision, we find ourselves in full agreement with the single judge that the applicant's grounds of appeal are not arguable.

We agree with the observations of the respondent as to Dr Kahtan's reports, which we too found to be prolix, unfocused, and to display a lack of impartiality. This was especially notable in his addendum prepared for sentencing where he spent paragraphs 6 to 24 of the addendum seeking, in effect, to argue with and to rebut the conclusions of the author of the pre-sentence report. The judge was entitled to prefer the evidence of Dr Chakrabarti, which was presented in a more measured, focused, and impartial way.

The judge's conclusion that the applicant's mental health did not lower his culpability for attempting to murder Ms Coulson was open to him on the evidence, and there are no grounds on which we can properly interfere with that conclusion.

The submission on behalf of the applicant that Ms Coulson did not suffer "serious" physical or mental harm is in our view without merit for the reasons given by the judge. It is not arguable that the judge was wrong to characterise the attempted murder as a Category B2 offence in the relevant guideline.

Having noted that the starting point for sentence was 25 years' custody and having indicated that he would give a little over 13 per cent credit for the applicant's guilty plea on re-arraignment shortly before the trial, which was arguably generous, the judge ultimately passed a sentence of 20 years' imprisonment, meaning that the sentence after trial would have been one of 23 years' imprisonment, below the starting point in the guideline.

In our view balancing the aggravating and mitigating factors properly found by the judge, the judge imposed a sentence for the attempted murder that was clearly within the range that was open to him having regard to the relevant guideline and the facts of this case. The sentence for the bladed article offence was made concurrent to the principal sentence, and no objection has been raised to it.

For these reasons, we refuse the applicant's renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence.