R v Harry Benson

His Majesty's Solicitor General seeks leave to refer as unduly lenient a sentence of 4 years, 3 months' imprisonment imposed by His Honour Judge Cooper, sitting in the Crown Court at Aylesbury on 13 June 2025.

The individual offences and sentences were as follows, all to run concurrently with each other:

In addition, the court had to deal with a summary-only offence under section 51(11) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1988 of having an offensive weapon in a private place, namely an extendable baton, for which a sentence of 4 months' imprisonment was imposed.

The offender had pleaded guilty to count 5 at the PTPH and to the other indictment offences on the date listed for trial but had given sufficient indication shortly before the trial date to enable the matter to be listed for plea rather than trial. He was awarded 15 per cent credit for plea, of which no complaint is made on behalf of the Solicitor General or the offender.

These offences originate with an incident which took place early on 27 August 2024, when both the offender and the victim were driving on their way to work. They were unknown to each other. The offender overtook the victim's vehicle on a single carriageway road but without sufficient power, resulting in the victim, who was travelling in the same direction, having to break and reduce his speed dramatically to allow the offender to pull back in in front of him to avoid a collision. The victim overtook the offender and started to drive slowly, then sped up. There was a second incident of the offender overtaking, or rather undertaking, this time on the inside, and again almost causing a collision. The victim saw two golf balls in his car and threw them in the direction of the offender's vehicle, although they did not make contact.

Ten days later, on 6 September 2024, the victim was at home when he heard someone at his door, shouting for him by name. When the victim opened the door, he saw the offender who had retreated. When the victim came out, the offender started walking towards the victim, saying, "Do you remember me?" He told the victim that he had dashcam footage of "the other day", and that he would be going to the police. It was only when he mentioned golf balls that the victim realised that he was the man from the previous incident.

The offender ushered the victim towards him in the direction of the street, away from the doorbell camera and said to him, "I know what you got going on here. I know you've got dogs. I know where your missus works. I know where you work. I know your van has no MOT and no tax. [...] Listen, I tell you what. I'm not going to the police but you’ve got to give me a grand. If you don't, I'll burn your dogs back there and I'll get a crackhead to drive through your fence."

The offender stood close to the victim, appearing confident and aggressive, screwing up his face and gritting his teeth. He continued with detail about what he knew about the victim and his life and his family. He said he had been watching him and knew all about him. The offender repeated the demand for £1,000 and repeated the threats to return at night and burn down the dog kennel.

The victim said he did not have the money. The offender said they could go round the corner and fight it out. The victim said he did not want to fight. The offender then told the victim he had a week to come up with the £1,000 that he had demanded and he repeatedly swung his open palm towards the victim's face, almost slapping him but stopping inches short in order to scare him, which it did. The victim flinched and jumped back, but then shouted, "Come on then", and took steps towards the offender.

As they stood facing each other, the offender then struck the victim twice, the first to his chest area and then, as he fell, a second blow to his chin. The victim initially thought that these were punches, but then realised that the offender was holding a knife in his right hand. It was a kitchen knife with a six-inch blade. When the victim ran back to his front door, he realised that he had been stabbed.

An ambulance was called and attending police noted a deep gash under the victim's left arm, which was bleeding with each heartbeat. It was bandaged and doctors arrived. They confirmed that there was no catastrophic bleeding or penetration into the chest cavity, and applied clotting dressings which contained the bleeding. The victim was taken to the emergency department of the local hospital.

There it was noted that there was a wound to the chin which was 2 to 3 centimetres in length, and a wound to the left armpit of some 10 centimetres in length. Both were deep wounds. The wound to the left armpit broke through the skin and subcutaneous fat and deeply into the tissue end beneath. Following a CT scan, the victim was referred to the plastic surgery team and admitted to hospital. He underwent surgery on 7 September, where it was noted that one of the muscles of his chest had been cut. The wounds were cleaned and repaired with sutures and the victim was discharged on the following day with the use of a sling for the following six weeks or so, and referred for physiotherapy.

The offender was identified from various sources and the police attended his home after nine o'clock on the evening of the incident, 6 September. He had been looking after his three children but was not there. His partner thought that he must have jumped from the balcony to flee the police. His home was searched. Two pots and a small bag of herbal cannabis were found in the kitchen (count 5). An extendable baton was found in the kitchen cupboard (the section 51 offence). Upon a search of his car, a brown-handled ice pick with a point of about 4 inches was found concealed in the roof (count 4), and a black and red pocket lock knife (count 3) was found in the rear seat pocket.

The offender handed himself in, having been circulated as wanted on 8 September.

The offender was aged 27 at the date of the offence, 28 at sentence. He had one previous conviction for shoplifting in 2018 and two cautions for criminal damage and theft in 2013 and 2018, respectively, when he was a youth.

The Judge had two personal statements from the victim. The first was dated 13 November 2024. The victim was self-employed and had been off work for the six weeks since the incident with consequent loss of earnings. He had restricted movement in his arm, still had to wear a harness at work and suffered aching from the chest wound. The chin wound had scarred. The statement set out details of the continuing impact in addition to the physical injuries. He was suffering night terrors and waking screaming, impacting on his partner as well as him. They were now so afraid in their home that they were seeking to sell their house and move with resultant financial loss, given a recent mortgage deal. They had postponed plans to start a family and their relationship was strained. He was unable to play golf due to his physical injuries, which was the recreation he would otherwise have enjoyed by way of release. Due to the threat to his dogs, he had rehomed two of them. He and his partner were afraid to be in the garden after dark. He had changed his number plate at a cost of £400, fearing he was being watched. He and his partner had become hypervigilant about home security and were afraid even of receiving deliveries, as the ringing of the doorbell upset them. He was depressed and anxious, and remained in fear that the offender would attack him again.

The second victim personal statement is dated 9 April 2025, now some 7 months after the attack. In it the victim described that the range of motion in his arm remained restricted with daily pain and that he had contacted his GP to seek help with the physical pain. He had accessed counselling but had been made to feel worse, having spent time participating in group sessions and listening to the traumatic stories of other people's experiences. He had since been referred to one-on-one support and reported that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. He continued to have nightmares and had changed his daily routines, which itself had seriously impacted his daily life. He felt that, "My life is on pause and I don't know how long it will be until it gets back on track."

The Judge also had medical records which confirmed that he was suffering from restricted movement and tenderness in the chest. They also confirmed that he had been under psychological assessment for continuing panic, distress and for PTSD.

The Judge also had a Pre-Sentence report. In his account of the offending given to the author of the report, the offender expressed remorse for his actions. However, that did not sit comfortably with the account which he gave to the author about the offending. That was an unrealistically exculpatory account and was inconsistent with his plea on a full facts basis. He suggested that he attended the victim's address because he happened by chance to have seen his van turn into his driveway. He followed him because he was not thinking and just wanted to let him know what he thought about the road rage incident, which he portrayed as entirely the victim's fault. The conversation between them was "normal". His explanation for carrying the kitchen knife was that he was worried the victim might hurt him. This, of course, was no explanation at all for why he had it with him if, as he suggested, this was a chance encounter. He suggested that there had only been one blow to cause the separate injuries. He explained his behaviour in part as being under the influence of cocaine. He explained the ice pick in his car as, "one he used to help him make roll-up cigarettes (moving the tobacco down)." He said that the other knife (which was referred to as a Stanley knife, although it was quite different from a Stanley knife) was in his car from a previous job as a grounds worker. He gave no explanation for the extendable baton found at his home.

The offender said that he was diagnosed with autism when he was at primary school but that this did not impact him significantly day to day.

The Judge also had a recent report from a consultant forensic psychiatrist Dr Agarwal. It recorded that the offender reported having been diagnosed with autism and ADHD when he was around 5 to 7 years of age and was prescribed medications which he stopped taking aged 10 to 11. He had not had any further contact with mental health professionals since then. The author had not had access to the offender's medical records.

The offender had completed for Dr Agarwal several autism questionnaires, which are a screening tool. The answers were such that he reached the threshold which would be sufficient for him to be referred for specialist autism diagnostic assessment. Dr Agarwal was unable himself to make a diagnosis from a single assessment. Dr Agarwal noted based on the answers given in the screening tools the offender's presentation over the years as described by him was indicative of traits of Autism Spectrum Disorder, and based on those he was, in Dr Agarwal's view, likely to present with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Dr Agarwal concluded that he was able to cope with the prison regime whilst on remand, which had not resulted in any significant deterioration in his mental state. He noted that the offender had over the course of his life "developed strategies to cope with the symptom manifestation of his Autism Spectrum Disorder, and these are evidenced by his adherence to his routine in prison."

As to ADHD, Dr Agarwal's report said that his childhood symptoms had abated to some degree and he had learned to manage them to an extent that they no longer impacted on his day-to-day life. He no longer met the criteria for a diagnosis for ADHD.

There were also before the Judge eleven letters from friends and family attesting to good qualities, and in particular, painting a glowing picture of his parenting skills to his three young daughters. One in particular suggested that he had suffered from Asperger's Syndrome/Autism Spectrum Disorder from childhood and suggested that this would make it very challenging or overwhelming to adjust to life in prisons. Others made no mention of any mental health difficulties affecting his life.

There was also a letter from the offender in which he expressed his regret for the incident. The potential mitigating effect of this was somewhat undermined by his suggestion in the letter that he had not intended to wound the victim in any way but only to scare him. The letter also explained that he had taken GCSE English whilst in prison and was studying to become a mentor for illiterate prisoners, and had attended courses addressing managing emotions and the use of cocaine. In his letter the offender said that cocaine was the single biggest factor in his having committed the offence.

The sentence was structured with count 6 as the lead offence, The Judge, having concluded that consecutive sentences for the weapons offences were not required and that they could be reflected by an uplift to the starting point, addressed count 6. It was placed into category A culpability in the Sentencing Council Guideline by reason of the planning and premeditation, the taking of weapons to the scene, the use of the knife and the motive being revenge. In respect of harm, the Judge summarised the immediate and lasting impact on the victim and said that this constituted grave injury and fell "principally" in category 2. Later on in the sentencing remarks, he said when choosing the starting point, that it was a case which "perhaps … ] may fall somewhere near to the cusp between categories 2 and 3."

For a category A2 offence the guideline starting point is 7 years with a range of 6 to 10 years. For a category A3 offence the starting point is 5 years, and the range 4 to 7 years.

The Judge took a "starting point" of 6 years before uplift for the weapons offences. We put "starting point" in inverted commas because there was a misuse of the expression. He was using it as it is, indeed, commonly misused to mean the appropriate sentence after a trial, taking account of all the aggravating and mitigating offence factors, but before consideration of personal mitigation and reduction for plea. The Judge indicated that he would reduce the sentence for mitigation, which he found was "extremely powerful in your case". He thereby identified a notional sentence after trial of 5 years. The mitigation identified was the following:

Having reached a notional sentence of 5 years after a trial, this was reduced by 15 per cent for the guilty pleas to reach an overall sentence of 4 years, 3 months.

On behalf of the Solicitor General, Ms Hole argued that the Judge failed to pass a sentence in this case which reflected the overall criminality. This was the result, in her submission, of his identifying a starting point within the range for a 2A offence which was too low, given the multiple factors indicative of high culpability, and secondly, in not imposing a sufficient uplift to account for the additional offences when applying the totality principle or of allowing too great a reduction for the personal mitigation.

Her submissions misused the expression "starting point" in the same way that they were misused by the Judge, but were nevertheless, clear.

On behalf of the offender Mr English submitted that the Judge had taken the correct starting point, as on the cusp of harm categories 2 and 3, and that he had carefully and properly rehearsed and taken into account the aggravating and mitigating features. Important mitigating features which he emphasised were the virtue of good character, the testimonials, the contents of the letter to the Judge, the neurological issues identified in the psychiatric report and the fact that he was father to three young daughters.

Mr English also submitted that the Judge had been wrong to treat as an applicable category factor significant premeditation and planning. Whilst recognising that it was not a very attractive submission, he submitted that the primary motivation for the offender making contact was a desire for money.

We reject that submission. The difficulty which it faces is that he had taken a knife with him and he had not used the knife at any stage when he was demanding money. On the contrary, he had sought to enforce those demands with the threat of slapping to the face. It was only when it was clear that the blackmail attempt failed that he used the knife. It is, therefore, clear that he had taken the knife with a view to using it if necessary if the blackmail attempt failed, and that was significant planning in relation to revenge for the incident.

Mr English also emphasised that the test on a reference of this nature is that the sentence must not merely be lenient but unduly lenient, and urged us to take the view that if we were persuaded it was lenient, it was not unduly lenient.

The Judge was, in our view, right to place this offending in category A2, which has a starting point of 7 years, given the nature and continuing effects of the victim's physical injuries and the lasting psychological effect on his health, a profound effect on his and his partner's life. It was then necessary to move significantly upward in the range for the number of significant aggravating factors. There were not one but three culpability A factors, as the Judge correctly identified: premeditation and planning, use of a highly dangerous weapon and revenge. In addition, the offender sought to extort £1,000 from the victim with threats to destroy his dogs and implicit threats to the victim and his family themselves in telling him that he knew all about them and their details. The attack itself was unprovoked. It was committed under the influence of cocaine. Moreover, a further upward adjustment was required to reflect the weapons offences of the ice pick and the lock knife which he had taken with him in the car, and the extendable baton which he had at home, for which concurrent sentences were being imposed.

We do not consider that the mitigation could properly be characterised as "extremely powerful". Indeed, it was quite limited. Mr English realistically accepted that there were no significant offence related mitigating factors. Testimonials from family and friends can only furnish a small degree of mitigation in a case like this, especially where both the Pre-sentence Report and the offender's letter to the court expressing remorse or regret put forward unrealistic accounts of his behaviour, seeking to minimise the gravity of the offending. As to the evidence of his neurodiversity, the carefully calibrated report of Dr Agarwal supports the Judge's conclusion that it played no part in his offending, but does not justify the Judge's conclusion that his experience in prison would be more challenging or onerous than that experienced by the majority of the prison population. On the contrary, the contents of the Pre-sentence Report and of Dr Agarwal's report reflect the fact that he has been able to accommodate himself and adapt so that his neurodiversity, such as it is, does not impact on his experience and that had been borne out by his time on remand. He had, as we have said, told the author of the Pre-sentence Report that his autism did not impact him significantly day to day. Whilst his steps taken in prison to improve himself and complete courses are commendable, they cannot justify a significant reduction in the sentence.

In our view, the circumstances of this offending and the offender's own circumstances required a sentence after trial of not less than about 7 ½ years. Applying a discount of 15 per cent would result in a sentence of about 75 months, that is 6 years, 3 months, (rounding down a little in the offender's favour). It follows that the sentence passed in this case was not merely lenient but unduly so.

We grant leave. We substitute a sentence on count 6 of six years, three months. The remaining concurrent sentences on the other counts remain undisturbed. The overall effect is that the total sentence is increased by two years to become one of six years and three months' imprisonment.