R v Rodney Baker

The respondent, Baker, was born on 2 July 1979. The respondent, McGuire, was born on 11 November 1982.

On 7 March 2025 in the Crown Court at Wood Green, Baker changed his plea to one of guilty to offences to which we will return. On 21 July 2025, McGuire was convicted by the jury of an offence of wounding with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. On 16 September 2025, both offenders were sentenced by Ms Recorder Fenn as follows. In the case of Baker:

His Majesty's Solicitor General now applies to this Court for leave, under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 ("the 1988 Act"), to refer those sentences on the ground that they were unduly lenient.

The facts are not in dispute for present purposes and can be taken from the Final Reference. In summary, in the early hours of 19 July 2024, the offenders attacked Daniel Pettit, and Baker attempted to attack his partner, Keira Maguire. Baker had a large machete which he used to inflict at least nine wounds to Mr Pettit, including to his head, shoulder and armpit. Other attempted strikes were directed towards his head and chest. McGuire punched and kicked Mr Pettit, including after he was on the ground, Baker having inflicted serious wounds to him with his machete. When Ms Maguire sought to intervene, Baker repeatedly swung his large machete at her head, coming close to striking her.

The facts in more detail are as follows. Mr Pettit saw one of the offenders go to grab Ms Maguire. He raised his hand to prevent him and said: "Don't fucking touch her". A physical altercation ensued between the offenders and Mr Pettit. The altercation was witnessed by a nearby resident who had been sleeping. She was woken by the sounds of shouting and looked outside the window. She said that she could see a group of men and women having a fight. She then saw a man in a North Face jacket (Baker) pull a large straight object out but could not see where it had come from. She saw Baker start hitting a male in a vest, repeatedly all over his body including to his shoulders, arms and head. She saw Mr Baker swing the object at Mr Pettit's stomach. The witness saw a second attacker (McGuire) punching Mr Petitt. He continued punching him until Mr Pettit fell to the floor. Baker struck Mr Pettit four times with a machete once he was on the floor, McGuire then punched and kicked Mr Pettit to the head whilst he was on the floor. McGuire was unarmed throughout. Baker also swung the machete at a woman's face as the woman sought to intervene to stop the attack. The machete narrowly missed her face. The attack was captured by a witness using a mobile telephone.

Police officers attended the scene,. They noted that Mr Pettit had sustained a number of incised wounds. He had an abnormally high heart rate. He was taken to hospital where he was treated. The police found a large machete abandoned nearby. At the hospital, Mr Pettit was found to have nine wounds and lacerations to his head, left shoulder, hand and left armpit, most measuring between 4 and 7 centimetres. A CT scan of his head, neck, chest, abdomen and pelvis was done. There was, for example, a collection of blood (that is a haematoma) within the soft tissue to the crown of the head. The CT scan was reviewed by the trauma surgery team. It was noted that the wound to the shoulder appeared to go all the way to the shoulder joint, possibly resulting in compromise of the joint. Four days later, on 23 July 2024, Mr Pettit was discharged from hospital.

On 13 September 2024, Baker was arrested. At interview he answered "no comment" to all questions. On 23 January 2025, McGuire was arrested. At interview he declined to answer all questions.

Baker first appeared in the Magistrates' Court on 16 September 2024. He gave no indication of plea. The case was sent to the Crown Court at Wood Green. He was remanded in custody. On 14 October 2024 a plea and pre-trial preparation hearing took place. Baker pleaded not guilty to all counts and a trial date was set for July 2025.

McGuire first appeared in the Magistrates' Court on 24 January 2025. He gave no indication of plea. His case was sent to the Crown Court at Wood Green and he was remanded in custody too. On 7 March 2025 the cases were joined. Both offenders were arraigned on the joint indictment. Baker now pleaded guilty to counts 2, 3 and 4. McGuire pleaded not guilty to the counts that he faced. Sentence in Baker's case was adjourned until the conclusion of McGuire's trial.

The trial began on 14 July 2025 and McGuire was convicted by a majority of 11:1 of wounding with intent on 21 July 2025. Sentence was adjourned pending the preparation of a pre-sentence report.

The lead offence in this case was count 2, wounding with intent. The maximum sentence for that offence is life imprisonment. The Sentencing Council has issued a Definitive Guideline for such offences. A case will fall within category A, high culpability, where a highly dangerous weapon is used such as a knife. A case will fall within category B (medium culpability) where an offender plays a lesser role in group activity. A case will fall within category 1 harm where there is particularly grave or life threatening injury caused or where the offence results in a permanent irreversible injury, which has a substantial and long-term effect on the victim's ability to carry out their normal day-to-day activities or their ability to work. Category 2 harm applies where there is grave injury. Category 3 applies in all other cases. The guideline notes that all cases will involve really serious harm. This is because of the nature of the offence itself.

Section 63 of the Sentencing Act 2020 (the Sentencing Code) requires the court to take into account not only the harm which was caused by the offence but also the harm which was intended or might foreseeably have been caused.

The Definitive Guideline makes certain recommendations. If a case falls within category 1A the starting point recommended is 12 years' custody with a range of 10 to 16 years. If a case falls within category 2A, the starting point recommended is 7 years' custody with a range of 6 to 10 years. It is also worth noting that if a case falls within category 1B the starting point recommended is 7 years' custody with a range of 6 to 10 years. If an offence falls within category 2B, the starting point recommended is 5 years' custody with a range of 4 to 7 years.

It is also important to keep in mind that the guideline expressly states that an adjustment from the starting point upwards or downwards may be necessary to reflect particular features of culpability and/or harm (for example, the presence of multiple factors within one category, the presence of factors from more than one category...) or where a case falls close to a borderline between categories.

We should also note, in the context of Baker's case, that an assessment of dangerousness requires that the court should take into account all the available information about the nature and circumstances of the offence and any other information before it about any pattern of behaviour of which any of the offences forms part as well as any information about the offender which is before the court (see section 308(2) of the Sentencing Code).

Baker had four previous convictions for six offences including a wounding offence in 1996 and a racially aggravated public order offence and an offence of having a bladed article in March 2020.

The sentencing judge, like this Court, had the benefit of a pre-sentence report dated 12 September 2025. In that report, the author noted the extreme level of aggression. The report noted that Baker was on licence at the time of the offences but was not complying with his sentence and was being recalled on licence. Baker told the author that he needed to move away from the area because he knew too many people there. It made obtaining drugs easy. He had worked as a painter and decorator for 30 years but that changed during the Covid Pandemic. His employer ended his employment in 2022/2023 and his drug use increased. The report noted that Baker had been working in custody and undertaking courses. He has two adult daughters and a 2-year-old granddaughter. He is single. He was assessed in the report as a high risk of serious harm both to his victim and to members of the public. Sixteen of 17 criteria identified as assisting in an assessment of dangerousness were met which the author described as "immediately alarming". The report said that his previous convictions showed that Baker can be very aggressive and has failed to learn from the experience of prison. He struggles to maintain stability in the community. The author said that the ferocity of these index offences was deeply concerning and that there was a credible case for an extended determinate sentence to manage his risk in the community.

There was also before the court a letter from Baker expressing his remorse for his actions and character references and a number of prison certificates. In the case of McGuire, he had 27 sets of convictions for 43 offences, principally for burglary and alike but they do also include attempted robbery and having an imitation firearm with intent to commit an indictable-only offence but that was back in 2003; affray in 2010, common assault in 2011 and the most recent offence (racially aggravated public order offence and battery) in 2022.

In McGuire's case the pre-sentence report, dated 16 September 2025, noted that McGuire said that he was not aware of the machete. When asked why he did not intervene he said he did not want to get involved with a machete. When asked why he kicked the victim when he was on the ground he said sarcastically: "In real life yeah, I could just walk away?" McGuire said he had been using heroin and crack cocaine for most of the day. He said he had been homeless since 2023 and had had a drug habit for two decades. His risk of reoffending was assessed as medium, however his risk of harm to the public was assessed as high.

The victim (Mr Pettit) provided a victim personal statement, dated 1 August 2025. He explained that he had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. He had struggled to hold and raise his newborn son, to do so causes him pain. He has been told the pain will never go away. It will have a lifelong effect on him. He cannot raise his arm above his shoulder. He cannot straighten the fingers on his left hand causing him problems with holding items. He used to enjoy work and doing gardening. He cannot anymore because of his injuries. His work prospects are limited. He gets panicked in social situations. He has required help with his mental health and is concerned about what may happen when the offenders are released from custody.

The sentencing court also had the benefit of a Sentencing Note from the prosecution. This stated that the harm fell "at least" into category 2 as there was grave injury.

In detailed sentencing remarks the Recorder took the section 18 offence as the lead offence. She found the harm fell into category 2. In Baker's case, culpability was high (category A) as he had a highly dangerous weapon. She noted the category starting point and range. She increased the sentence by 6 months to reflect her assessment of the aggravating and mitigating features. She further increased the sentence to 9 years and 6 months' imprisonment to reflect the attempted section 18 offence and the bladed article offence. The Recorder considered the mitigation: drug addiction; loss of job during the pandemic; positive efforts in prison; some evidence of remorse, difficult and deprived upbringing. She took into account the fact that Baker was on licence, and his previous conviction for having a bladed article. Balancing all those factors she arrived at a sentence of 9 years' imprisonment. She then afforded Baker 20 per cent reduction for his guilty pleas. She explained that the attempted section 18 offence also fell within category 2A and that having a bladed article fell within category 1A. That, for such an offence, provides a category starting point of 18 months' imprisonment. The Recorder then went on to consider dangerousness. She concluded that the offender was indeed dangerous but declined to impose an extended determinate sentence giving the following reasons for not doing so:

Turning to McGuire, the Recorder said the same analysis applied save there was also a culpability B factor because he had played a lesser role in group activity. She arrived at a sentence of 6 years' imprisonment to reflect the balance of factors. McGuire's offending was aggravated by his violent offence in 2022, the use of drugs and alcohol and timing of the offence, but she found there to be extensive mitigation including drug addiction, steps taken to address that addiction in prison and a learning disability of dyslexia. He had left education at 14 unsupported with no qualifications. He had had a difficult and/or deprived background and remorse was indicated albeit at a very late stage. He was rebuilding family support after the loss of his mother in 2023. Balancing all those factors the Recorder arrived at a sentence, as we have mentioned, of 5 years and 3 months' imprisonment. The Recorder considered dangerousness in McGuire's case but did not find him to be a dangerous offender. No complaint about that is raised in this application by the Solicitor General.

On behalf of the Solicitor General, Mr Richardson submits that the sentences in both of these cases were unduly lenient and represented a gross error for the following main reasons. First, harm should have fallen within category 1 for three reasons. First, it was particularly grave given the extensive nature of the injuries to Mr Pettit. Secondly, the offence has had a substantial and long-term effect on his ability to carry out his normal day-to-day activities and his ability to work. Thirdly, in accordance with section 63 of the Sentencing Code, the sentencing judge should have also taken into account the intended and foreseeable harm as a result of this savage attack. Mr Richardson also stresses that this Court should not feel hesitant to intervene in this case because it is not a case where there was a great deal of live evidence. Alternatively, even if the Recorder was correct in her categorisation of harm as grave, that is category 2, Mr Richardson submits that it should have fallen at the top end of the relevant category range. In Baker's case that would have provided for a sentence of 10 years' imprisonment after trial for the offence of wounding with intent alone. Next, Mr Richardson submits that whichever of those approaches is adopted, consideration then had to be given to the concurrent sentences which were to be imposed for the other offences, in particular, the offence of attempted wounding with intent was itself serious. Furthermore, there were these aggravating and mitigating features to be weighed in the balance. In Baker’s case, the aggravating features were:

Demonstration of steps taken to address addiction whilst in prison.

Difficult and/or deprived background.

His previous conviction and

The offence was committed whilst under the influence of alcohol and drugs.

Mr Richardson does not criticise the decision by the Recorder to make a discount of 20 per cent for Baker's guilty pleas although he submits that was the most credit that could properly have been given for those pleas. Further, given the facts of the offending, the content of the pre-sentence report and the Recorder's own correct determination that Baker was a dangerous offender, Mr Richardson submits that an extended determinate sentence needed to be imposed in this case. He submits that the Recorder's exercise of discretion not to impose one was not reasonably available in the circumstances of this case. Further, he submits that the reasons given by the Recorder, which we have summarised earlier, were very largely not related to the question of reduction of the risk posed by Baker to the public but they had more, for example, to do with mitigating features such as progress he had made in prison.

Turning to McGuire's case, Mr Richardson submits that a determinate sentence of between 8 and 10 years' imprisonment was called for to reflect his lesser role in the offending but this again depends on whether his principal or alternative submission is accepted as to categorisation of the harm caused to the victim.

On behalf of the respondent Baker, Mr Marshall has filed written submissions which he has developed at this hearing before the Court. In summary, he submits that the Recorder conducted a careful, considered and thorough sentencing exercise. All relevant matters were fairly evaluated. He submits that:

In developing those written submissions before the Court, Mr Marshall submits first, in relation to categorisation of the harm, that there was insufficient evidence to categorise the injuries as being life threatening or particularly grave. He contrasts cases, for example, where there is loss of sight caused or a person is rendered completely paralysed. Nor, he submits, was there medical evidence to support a finding of PTSD or evidence that the injuries would not be susceptible to treatment and amelioration.

Turning to section 63 of the Sentencing Code, Mr Marshall submits that has a greater application where an offence is inchoate whereas here the offence was completed and can be seen, for example, on the mobile phone footage.

Turning to count 3 on the indictment, Mr Marshall acknowledges that there does appear to have been error in the sentencing judge's approach. Given the sentence that she in fact imposed on Baker for this offence, after a guilty plea, that would suggest that a notional sentence after trial would have been in the region of 5½ years but certainly less than the 6 years which is in the category range for 2A offence. Nevertheless, Mr Marshall submits that this was acceptable in the circumstances of this case and fell within a reasonable range. Further, he submits that it appears to be common ground that an uplift of 2 years for this concurrent sentence was appropriate.

Turning to the question of dangerousness, Mr Marshall submits that the Recorder carefully considered the factors which persuaded her to exercise her discretion not to impose an extended determinate sentence despite her finding of dangerousness. We have summarised those factors earlier in this judgment. Further, Mr Marshall submits that the offender Baker has had an exemplary attitude and has displayed exemplary conduct while in prison, as is evidenced by the report. He has an enhanced status in prison, which is an indicator, which counterbalances he submits what has been said about risk, for example, in the pre-sentence report. He also reminds this Court of Baker's ability to hold down a job in the past and raise a family. He submits that the Recorder had a discretion that was properly exercised in this case. In conclusion, Mr Marshall submits that although the sentence might be described as generous or lenient it was by no means unduly so.

On behalf of the respondent McGuire, Ms Gambrill submits that the injuries in this case while numerous were not particularly grave or life threatening within the meaning of the Definitive Guideline. There was no medical report setting out an expert opinion about recovery or any long-term effect of the injuries sustained. There was no formal diagnosis or medical evidence of any permanent irreversible injury or psychological condition. Ms Gambrill reminds us that the Recorder had presided over the trial and was in a good position to form an assessment of all the evidence. She submits that it was properly open to the Recorder to find that the harm fell into category 2. This had also been the view of the prosecution ("at least category 2"). Although Ms Gambrill accepts that this is not binding on the law officers, nevertheless she submits this is a powerful indicator of the proper assessment which was done after a careful evaluative exercise by the Recorder. She submits that section 63 of the Sentencing Code does not require the sentencing court in all cases to take account of all the factors mentioned cumulatively.

So far as culpability is concerned, Ms Gambrill submits that McGuire was a secondary party and had a lesser role and this was rightly recognised by the Recorder. Ms Gambrill accepts that this was strictly speaking a category A culpability case but submits that the Recorder then carefully adjusted the sentence that she would have imposed having regard both to reflect aggravating factors and then a downward adjustment to reflect the considerable mitigation. This enabled the Recorder to arrive at a sentence, even after trial, below the category range recommended for a category 2A offence. As we have mentioned earlier, that range is 6 to 10 years' custody.

Ms Gambrill acknowledges that McGuire had a longer list of previous convictions than Baker, but few had relevance to the index offending and many were of some age. In mitigation, the Recorder took account of the progress that McGuire had made in prison and his intention to make further progress. There was also the social background and disadvantage and his learning disability of dyslexia. Overall Ms Gambrill submits the sentence arrived at was properly open to the sentencing judge. In parts perhaps it could be described as generous but she submits there was no gross error and the sentence was not unduly lenient.

The principles which govern applications for leave under section 36 of the 1988 Act are well established and were summarised, for example, in Attorney-General's Reference (Egan) [2022] EWCA Crim 1751; [2023] 2 Cr App R(S) 16 at [3-6]. In particular:

As this Court said in Attorney-General's Reference No 132 of 2001 (Bryn Dorian Johnson) [2002] EWCA Crim 1418;[2003] 1 Cr App R(S) 41 at [24], in a judgment given by Potter LJ, the purposes of the system of Attorney-General's References include:

Finally, in this context, we recall that in the seminal decision of this Court in Attorney-General's Reference No 4 of 1989 (1990) 90 Cr App R 366 at page 371, Lord Lane CJ said that even where this Court considers that a sentence was unduly lenient, it retains a discretion as to whether to exercise its power to increase a sentence.

We see force in the principal submission made on behalf of the Solicitor General that the harm in this case was so serious that it should have been put in category 1 but we must recall the trial judge was best placed to make such assessments. Nevertheless, even if she was entitled not to place this harm into category 1, we have reached the conclusion that it was at the top of category 2. We also bear in mind, as we have mentioned earlier, that the guideline expressly states that an adjustment from the starting point upwards or downwards may be necessary, for example, where a case falls close to a borderline between categories.

Taking into account that there had to be an uplift to reflect that there were also other offences for which sentence had to be passed, in particular the attempted section 18 offence, and taking into account, aggravating as well as mitigating factors, we consider that a notional sentence after trial in Baker's case would have been one of 12½ years' imprisonment. Giving credit of 20 per cent, that results in a sentence of 10 years.

We also consider that the sentence for the attempt was itself wrong in principle. The judge must have started at a notional sentence after trial well below the bottom range of the category range for a category 2A offence, that is 6 years' imprisonment in order to arrive at a sentence after guilty plea of 4 years. Assuming that the attempt was to be placed in category 2A the guideline recommends a starting point of 7 years' imprisonment with a range of 6 to 10 years. The judge did not explain why the notional sentence she took was below that range. We consider that the sentence after trial should have been 6 years and 5 months. Giving 20 per cent credit for the guilty plea, that results in a sentence of 5 years and 2 months' imprisonment. This does not affect the overall length of the sentence because this sentence will remain concurrent but, as it was wrong in principle, it is necessary for this Court to correct it.

We also agree with the Solicitor General that the judge fell into error in not imposing an extended determinate sentence. Where a defendant has been found to be dangerous by the court and we entirely endorse the judge's assessment on that point, although the court has a discretion not to impose an extended determinate sentence, there must be a sufficient and reasonable explanation for not imposing that sentence. We accept the Solicitor-General's submissions that the factors which the Recorder mentioned were very largely unrelated to management of the risk which the dangerous offender would pose to the public. Some indeed appear to us to be irrelevant to the exercise of that discretion. For example, the fact that a defendant will serve two-thirds of the sentence is to state what the legal consequence is of the decision made by Parliament in adopting the automatic early release provisions which have been enacted. In our judgment, this would not offer additional protection to the public from a dangerous offender. Furthermore, we bear in mind that Baker was on licence for a previous offence where he carried a blade and he had clearly had not learnt his lesson from his time in prison. In the circumstances we think it necessary to impose an extended determinate sentence of 13 years comprising a custodial term of 10 years and an extended licence period of 3 years.

Turning to the respondent McGuire, it is common ground that he played a lesser role in this attack. On the other hand, he did not plead guilty and so no credit can be given for that. We accept what is in effect the alternative submission advanced on behalf of the Solicitor General that the minimum term which needed to be imposed in his case was 8 years' imprisonment.

For the reasons we have given, we grant the Solicitor General leave to refer the sentences to this Court under section 36 of the 1988 Act. On that Reference, we alter the sentences in the following way: in the case of Baker, on count 2, the sentence will be an extended determinate sentence of 13 years comprising a custodial term of 10 years and an extended licence period of 3 years; on count 3, there will be a sentence of 5 years and 2 months remaining concurrent. Count 4 is left as it was. In the case of McGuire, in relation to the only sentence there will be a sentence of 8 years' imprisonment.