BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> X, R. v [2013] EWCA Crim 1173 (14 June 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2013/1173.html Cite as: [2013] EWCA Crim 1173 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Strand London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE EDWARDS-STUART
THE RECORDER OF BRISTOL
His Honour Judge Ford QC
(Sitting as a judge of the CACD)
____________________
| R E G I N A | ||
| v | ||
| X |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
LORD JUSTICE ELIAS: This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence. The applicant was sentenced at Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court [in] 2013 to a period of 13 years for attempted murder. It was the attempted murder of his partner. They had been in a relationship for some four years. They had a son together. At one stage they were going to be married. He was very distressed when the relationship came to an end and became very jealous when it became clear that she was starting a relationship with another man.
Under the pretext of returning some belonging to her, she went to see him at his car outside her house and he carried out a very violent attack, stabbing her a number of times. There were serious injuries. She had to have a life-saving operation. Sadly their son witnessed the end of the incident and was understandably deeply upset by it.
The judge stated in terms that he was not identifying a specific starting point but noted that the guidelines indicated a range of 12 to 20 years. There was a plea on the day of trial and the judge indicated that in the circumstances he would allow more than the orthodox 10 per cent because the plea had demonstrated remorse and would provide some sympathy for the victim. Thirteen years for attempted murder with a knife is manifestly not excessive as counsel effectively concedes.
The one ground of appeal drafted by counsel was that the judge having indicated that he would give more than 10 per cent for the plea, failed to do so. The premise is that the judge must have started at 15 years which is the entry point on the guidelines and was the sentence imposed in the case of Ipeck [2006] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 127. Counsel says that a reduction from 15 to 13 years is only a reduction of some 13.3 per cent which is not a significant increase over the 10 per cent which the judge had indicated he would give.
We think there is nothing at all in that point. The premise is that the starting point was 15 years and that is not a premise which we are prepared to share. As we have said, the incident here was carried out in front of the child and the young may well have thought that something a little above the starting point was required. In any event, there was a reduction which was more than 10 per cent. Looking at the matter overall, this was a proper sentence and cannot be said to be manifestly excessive so we refuse permission to appeal.
