No. 2002/06118/X5

Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWCA Crim 1687
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL  DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London
WC2A 2LL

Tuesday  18  March  2003

B e f o r e:

 THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES
(The Lord Woolf of Barnes)

MR  JUSTICE  GAGE

 and

MR  JUSTICE  MOSES

__________________

R E G I N A

- v -

DAVID  GUY  COLLINS

__________________

Computer Aided Transcription by
Smith Bernal, 190 Fleet Street, London EC4
Telephone 020-7421 4040
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
__________________

 MRS T OSSACK appeared on behalf of THE APPELLANT

 ___________________

 J U D G M E N T
(As Approved by the Court)
____________________

            Tuesday 18 March 2003

            THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE: I will ask Mr Justice Moses to give the judgment of the court.

            MR JUSTICE MOSES:

1.         This appellant appeals with leave of the single judge against a total sentence of seven years' imprisonment passed on him on 23 September 2002 at the Central Criminal Court, having pleaded guilty some months earlier to one of the indictments and on re‑arraignment more recently to an indictment alleging unlawful wounding. On indictment 114 he was sentenced to a total of three‑and‑a‑half years' imprisonment for robbery. On indictment 770 he was sentenced to a consecutive term of three‑and‑a‑half years' imprisonment for unlawful wounding, seven years' imprisonment in all.

2.         The appellant is aged 26. The offence of unlawful wounding took place on 1 February 2000 when the appellant was with his former partner, a 55 year old man. They had been drinking together during the evening at that man's home and had consumed a considerable amount of alcohol. The victim woke up in the middle of the night, having been asleep, to find the appellant stabbing him with a knife. So serious was the stabbing that the victim suffered from twelve puncture wounds to his upper body and arms, and a collapsed lung. In order to escape he fled the house without any clothes. The injuries were clearly serious.

3.         Six days later, at about 7.30am on 7 February, a school teacher was walking in South‑East London. The appellant approached her, grabbed hold of her handbag, jerking her arm and causing her some pain, forcing her to release the bag. Fortunately, the appellant was caught because the police arrived very quickly and toured the area with the victim. She was able to point out the appellant.

4.         In passing sentence the judge commented upon what he described, we think rightly, as “the terrible attack upon the victim as he was sleeping in his bed”. He also commented upon the gravity of the offence of robbery in the street.

5.         The appellant has a number of previous convictions for dishonesty, including one for robbery back in 1995. It is clear that a substantial sentence of imprisonment was merited.

6.         Looked at individually it is plain to us that neither of the sentences could properly be challenged as being manifestly excessive. However, looked at as a total we think that there are grounds for saying that the sentence of seven years' imprisonment after pleas of guilty was too high.

7.         There is a particular feature of this case to which we wish to draw attention. The appellant undertook to take part in the restorative justice programme. This is a comparatively recent programme designed to ensure effective sentencing for the better protection of the public. We see clear evidence in the way that that programme was carried out to show that it is going at least some way to achieving its purpose and is to be encouraged. To this appellant's credit he took part in the programme. It is by no means a soft option, as the facts of this case reveal. The appellant was required to agree to attend a conference at which not only the school teacher and members of her family attended, but also members of the appellant's own family. He did attend that. The victim was there with five other members of her family and the appellant was there with two other members of his. As a result of that conference face to face with his victim the appellant was required to write a letter of apology to her. We have seen that letter and other letters that he wrote to her. We have also seen, to her great credit, the merciful letter that his victim wrote hoping that things would go well for this young man in the future. It did not stop there. He was required to deal with the drugs problem that to some extent had led to these serious offences. He agreed to attend Narcotics Anonymous on a regular basis and applied for a change of prison where a drug treatment programme was available. Importantly, he was also required to write to a liaison police officer every three months to report upon his progress. We think that that was a powerful feature of the sentence, and one to which it is important that we draw attention. The judge referred to the fact that the appellant had written to the victim, but we think that it was to the credit of the appellant that he took part in that programme and that it is a factor properly to be taken into account.

8.         In all the circumstances, having regard to that feature and to the appellant's plea of guilty, we think that the total sentence of seven years was too long. We think that for the period of seven years a total of five years' imprisonment should be substituted made up as follows. We do not think that it would be right to interfere with the three‑and‑a‑half years' imprisonment passed for unlawful wounding. That was a very serious and life‑threatening incident. But in respect of the robbery for the three‑and‑a‑half years' imprisonment we would substitute a period of one‑and‑a‑half years to run consecutively, making five years' imprisonment in all. We would emphasise that we are by no means saying that one‑and‑a‑half years' imprisonment would be appropriate for street mugging of this nature if the offence had stood on its own. We are reducing the period of three‑and‑a‑half years' imprisonment to one of one‑and‑a‑half years' imprisonment for the purposes of ensuring that an appropriate total sentence of five years is passed. To that extent this appeal is allowed.