England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		15 May 2009

1. LORD JUSTICE TOULSON: I will ask HHJ Wadsworth to give the judgment of the court.
2. HIS HONOUR JUDGE WADSWORTH: This is an appeal against sentence imposed at the Crown Court at Preston in November 2008 following the acceptance by the Crown of a plea to a lately added count 2 in the indictment of unlawful wounding, and the very proper acceptance by the Crown of a plea of not guilty to the initial single count of a section 18 wounding with intent.
3. The sentence imposed was one of 12 months' imprisonment suspended for two years with a two-year supervision requirement and a 300-hour unpaid work requirement. There was also an order that the appellant pay £3,000 in compensation to the victim and £708 towards prosecution costs. The appeal is limited to the provisions for the 300 hours unpaid work requirement and the £3,000 compensation.
4. The facts can be relatively simply put. The complainant was known to the defendant and there was some issue before the court below as to the real relations between them, but I take it essentially from the statement of the complainant herself. She said that on the evening concerned she went with friends to the George pub. As she went into the beer garden for a cigarette she noticed a male also there, the appellant, whom she knew as her supervisor at work. She said:

"I have known him for the past year. I also know his wife as she used to be my friend ... I worked with [him] at [an address] in Chorley. When I saw [him] I just said hello to him. We remained in the George for about half an hour then decided to go to [another pub].

As we walked down the steps ... I could see [the appellant] sat on the wall outside the pub. I told [those with whom I was] that I did not want to go into the pub because Murat was there. I believe [he] does not like me."

5. She then describes being at the back of the public house, and says:

"The next thing I saw was Murat walk from behind Tracy and Adele and push his glass towards my face. I felt the glass hit me above my left eye and put my hands up over my face. I noticed others panicking and then realised that my nose had burst also and I have a small cut to the left side of my nose."

6. There is no suggestion in this case that a glass was broken before being used, and it was accepted, and rightly accepted, in the course of the proceedings in the court below, that this was a single quick incident without an intention to cause serious harm, hence the acceptable plea to count 2.
7. In sentencing, the learned Recorder rightly said that this was a matter to be taken very seriously. His words were:

"This court treats fights, assaults, in pubs at night very seriously indeed."

8. Had there not been a guilty plea, a sentence of immediate imprisonment might very well have been appropriate, and the suspended sentence, as I have said, is not a matter in issue before us.
9. Turning to the question of the hours of unpaid work, again it is rightly accepted on behalf of the appellant that such an order is appropriate. We agree with and accept the submission that the order for 300 hours, the maximum permissible, is excessive in the light of both the facts of the case as a whole and the imposition of the suspended sentence. We quash that order and substitute for it an order for 150 hours.
10. So far as concerns the question of compensation to the victim, we have the benefit of the statement of the consultant in accident and emergency medicine, who has reviewed the notes and the documentation in the hospital. He describes the incident thus:

"She stated that she had been hit in the face by a wine glass the previous day. This had resulted in a nosebleed and an open wound to the left side of her forehead measuring approximately 2.5 centimetres in length. She also had slight bruising to the left side of her nose. The forehead wound was closed with glue and she was discharged ..."

11. We have seen the photographs. We have considered this against the normal amount that one would expect to see in a civil case in damages for a wound or a scar of this nature. We accept the submission of the appellant that the proper figure is one for £1,000. To that extent, again, we quash the sentence and substitute the figure of £1,000. All other matters set out in the sentence stand as before.