Section 18 Question

[LiveAndLearn]

Hi all,

I understand that suspended sentences for section 18 offences are very rare. There's a case I read about which has left me confused.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/local-news/suspended-jail-term-pub-glassing-4721376.amp

In the above case, defendant is found guilty by jury after trial, this means no reduction in sentence? so even if placed in lowest category with min range, a sentence of 3 years should still have been passed, why did the judge pass a 2 year suspended sentence?

I understand that previous good character, single blow and excess self defence may all have been used in mitigation, however a weapon was used which aggravates the offence. Injuries are not serious for the offence, but the minimum should be three years so I'm interested to know why the judge moved out of sentencing guidelines?

[Buenchico]

The judge didn't go outside of the guidelines.

Pages 3 to 6 here
http://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Assault_definitive_guideline_-_Crown_Court.pdf
need to be read in conjunction with the provisions of Section 144 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and this:
http://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Reduction_in_Sentence_for_a_Guilty_Plea_-Revised_2007.pdf

[LiveAndLearn]

Thanks Buenchino, but the article states: "A jury had already found Golding, from Forest Green, guilty of wounding with intent...."

Does the fact that jury found D guilty not mean D failed to offer a guilty plea at any point? If so there would be no reduction in the sentence?

The sentencing guidelines show that 3 years is the minimum sentence which can be given for this offence, there is no guilty plea so no reduction in sentence and therefore the sentence should not have been suspended, where am I going wrong?

[Buenchico]

The rules don't say that a judge can't go outside of the guidelines. (If they did there would clearly be a discrepancy between the maximum penalty allowed by law and the maximum allowed by the guidelines). They simply state that, if a judge does decide to go outside of the guidelines he must explain his reasons in open court.

He appears to have done that:
“This was a genuinely uncharacteristic lapse in the life of someone who has been positive and hardworking. It was an isolated episode.” (together with the rest of the quotes in that article)

[LiveAndLearn]

"The judge didn't go outside of the guidelines."

"The rules don't say that a judge can't go outside of the guidelines."

ok so he did go out of guidelines.

That's mainly what I wanted to know as it's good that judges aren't too restricted by rigid guidelines.

[Buenchico]

PS: A judge might also regard a defendant has having entered a guilty plea (for the purposes of sentencing) if he fully accepted throughout the court proceedings that he'd carried out the actions that he was accused of but (based upon advice from his legal advisers) was only challenging the actual classification of the offence.

So, taking the advice of his solicitor/barrister (who was of the opinion that there was insufficient evidence to prove "with intent to do some grievous bodily harm", the guy might have pleaded "not guilty under Section 18 but guilty under Section 20".

When the jury later convicted him under Section 18, the judge could regard the attempt to plead guilty to Section 20 plea as relevant for sentencing purposes.

Indeed, this quote strongly suggests that the judge thought that the jury had got it wrong!
"As far as I am concerned there was no premeditation. It happened in a second and I’m satisfied it happened as a result of excess self defence".