R v Anton Cobham

On 18 September 2025, following his trial in the Crown Court at Exeter, the appellant was convicted of one offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (count 1) and two offences of assault on an emergency worker, contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and section 1 of the Assaults on Emergency Worker Offences Act 2018 (counts 2 and 3).

On 23 December 2023, the appellant was a serving prisoner at HMP Exeter and accommodated in the Segregation Unit. The three victims were prison officers working in the Segregation Unit on that day. The appellant had damaged a cell the night before and at 9.00 am on 23 December was damaging his cell wall and creating a lot of noise. Staff were asked to go to his cell to prevent him from causing more damage. Having told him to stand back Mr Cretch (the victim in count 1) unlocked the door, whereupon the appellant hit him immediately to the eye area with the metal emergency bell panel that he had removed from the wall. Mr Cretch let out a scream of pain. Other officers immediately entered the cell to try to stop the appellant attacking Mr Cretch. The appellant hit Mr Santuana to the face (count 3) and then tried to hit him again. Mr Santuana ducked and the appellant hit Mr Mortimore (count 2). Mr Cretch was dragged out of the cell by officers and taken to hospital, where he was found to have a laceration beneath his eye and bruising. There was tenderness to the lower eye socket. The appellant continued to strike out and was behaving in an aggressive manner after Mr Cretch had left. Mr Santuana struck him and the appellant was restrained on the ground. Whilst being restrained he tried to bite Mr Santuana and spat at him. Handcuffs were applied. Officers continued to try to restrain the appellant for a period of time before they could safely leave the cell.

Mr Santuana sustained bruising and swelling to the top of his head and suffered headaches for several days afterwards. Mr Mortimore suffered pain, bruising and swelling to the top of his head.

The appellant was arrested. He refused to be interviewed. In his Defence Statement he said that he hit back to defend himself after officers had threatened him. He denied trying to bite Mr Santuana or striking Mr Mortimore.

In an impact statement Mr Cretch said that in 8 years working for the Prison Service he had never before been assaulted so seriously. He was generally able to calm prisoners down if needed and the assault was a shock. He had to take some time off work and intended to be much more wary of prisoners in the future.

In his impact statement Mr Santuana described feeling distressed and angry at the time of the assault. He too was more cautious at work. He suffered increased anxiety and stress at work where he struggled to concentrate on his duties.

Mr Mortimore described the incident as one of the most challenging he had experienced in the Prison Service and at the time of the impact statement in February 2026 was still suffering flashbacks of it.

The appellant was aged 26 years at sentence. He had 28 convictions for 70 offences between 2012 and 2024, 28 of which were against the person, five of public order offences and three concerned offensive weapons. These included arson, criminal damage, common assault, threatening behaviour and assaulting a constable.

The appellant told the author of the pre-sentence report that he was in the Segregation Unit in December 2023 as a result of wrong intelligence that he was involved in a drug ring in the prison. He was angry to be there and felt a sense of injustice which was why he damaged the cell. He had frequently been moved around prisons which he found unsettling. He maintained his innocence of the assaults, saying he acted as he did because he had been threatened. He denied using the metal bell panel, saying the injury to Mr Cretch had been caused by his fist.

At the date of the pre-sentence report the appellant was a recalled prisoner following his sentence of 48 months on 4 February 2021, for spraying a nurse and prisoner with urine, a series of assaults and arson whilst on the Segregation Unit at HMP Lincoln. He was released on licence on 14 July 2023. Although compliant initially with his licence conditions he failed to return to his accommodation when specified. This triggered his recall. Whilst unlawfully at large the appellant assaulted a police officer and a member of the public. When arrested on 13 September 2023, he was returned to prison. He remains a recall prisoner until the end of his licence in July 2026.

The appellant's prison offender manager reported that the appellant remained a very high risk of serious harm to staff both within the prison, and in the community. He has continued to receive negative entries during his time on recall as a result of further incidents of fire setting, assaulting staff members, attempts at suicide and ongoing substance misuse.

As a result of his attitude towards staff the appellant had not completed any programme work. It had been difficult to complete any offence focused work or address the appellant's criminogenic needs. As a result he was assessed as posing a very high risk of harm to staff within the prison. It was said in the report he felt justified in using aggression to deal with problems and has significantly poor emotional control. He was further assessed as posing a very high risk of serious harm to members of the public and to other prisoners. The author of the pre-sentence report said that he has no internal controls to allow himself to deal with situations other than with the use of violence.

In his sentencing remarks the judge found that the appellant regarded himself as a victim of maltreatment in the prison estate when operational decisions affected him. If he disagreed with them he became violent and aggressive. The judge set out the conclusions of the author of the report describing the appellant as "violent and manipulative".

The judge said it was inappropriate to make any reduction for totality. He said it would be unjust to do so in circumstances where the appellant had planned to attack three public servants and injured each of them. On count 1 the judge said that the factors of planning and use of the weapon took the sentence to the top of the sentencing range, and the serious aggravating factors led to a sentence of 3 years and 3 months' imprisonment. The judge concluded the circumstances of each of the other assaults took the sentence to 6 months' imprisonment, the top of the sentencing range. He increased that sentence by 3 months to reflect the aggravating factors. He increased the sentence on count 3 by a further 3 months by reason of the appellant spitting at the victim, which the judge described as "particularly gross". The judge found the appellant dangerous in that there was a significant risk of him causing serious harm to others by the commission of further specified offences. He approached the overall sentence by imposing the 12 months' imprisonment on count 3 to be served first. He imposed a consecutive extended sentence of imprisonment on count 1. The custodial term of 4 years' imprisonment was made up by the aggregate of 3 years and 3 months' imprisonment imposed on count 1, and the 9 months' imprisonment on count 2. He ordered the 9-month sentence to run concurrently.

The appellant contends that his sentence is manifestly excessive on two grounds. First, Mr Cuddihee, for whose concise submissions we are grateful, submits that the judge erred in stepping too far outside of the guideline for each offence. On count 1 he submits that whilst there were aggravating factors an increase from the starting point of 18 months to 3 years and 3 months was too long. He makes the same point in relation to each of the other counts. Second, Mr Cuddihee submits that by making the sentences on count 1 and 3 consecutive the judge wrongly failed to take any account of totality. He submits that this was an incident which was very short in duration, in which the appellant threw a maximum of three blows in quick succession and in which the victim suffered relatively minor physical injuries. He submits that if one steps back and looks at the offences in the round, a sentence even of 4 years' imprisonment would have been manifestly excessive. The resulting sentence is therefore not just or proportionate to the offending.

We agree with the judge that these were serious offences. The appellant had manipulated the entry of the officers into his cell by the damage he was causing. He clearly planned to assault whoever came in and had a metal plate to use as a weapon. Three officers acting in the course of their duty were assaulted. Prison officers have a very difficult job to do and they must be protected. All were impacted by the incident, Mr Cretch in particular. As is conceded, the judge was correct in those circumstances to categorise the offences in the way that he did within the applicable guidelines.

We also consider the judge correct in finding that the offences were significantly aggravated by the appellant's appalling previous record for violence, particularly within the prison environment. There was little, if any, mitigation and a custodial sentence of some length was therefore merited.

However, in our view, there is force in the appellant's submissions that the overall sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. Whilst serious, these assaults occurred during one incident of short duration. The same aggravating factors applied in each assault. Although, as the Totality Guideline makes clear, there is no inflexible rule as to how the sentence should be structured, this in our view is a paradigm case for concurrent sentences with count 1 being treated as the lead offence and an uplift applied to reflect the overall aggravating factors and assaults in counts 2 and 3. If consecutive sentences were to be made, it was incumbent on the judge to consider the question of totality. As the guideline makes clear it is usually impossible to arrive at a just and proportionate sentence simply by adding together notional single sentences. Ordinarily some downward adjustment is required. In our view, the judge fell into error in concluding that there should be no downward adjustment in this case.

Standing back and looking at the offending as a whole we consider that a total sentence of 3 years and 6 months' imprisonment is just and proportionate in this case. The judge was correct, in our view, to place the offending in count 1 at the top of the range for a category 2A offence, with a notional sentence therefore of 2 years and 6 months' imprisonment. Treating that count as the lead offence, the aggravating factors he identified and the need to reflect the additional two assaults would, in our judgment, justify an increase in that sentence by 12 months to one of 3 years and 6 months.

The appellant has not been convicted before of an offence which falls within Schedule 14 of the Sentencing Act. As the just and proportionate term of imprisonment is less than 4 years it follows that an extended sentence of imprisonment is not available in this case.

To that extent, this appeal is allowed.