No: 2006/6602/A4 
Neutral Citation Number: [2007] EWCA Crim 1108
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 
CRIMINAL DIVISION 
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2 

Date: Wednesday, 25 April 2007
 
B E F O R E:
LORD JUSTICE TUCKEY 
MR JUSTICE BENNETT 

MR JUSTICE GROSS 

- - - - - - -
R E G I N A 

-v- 

JOHN SEIT
 
- - - - - - -
 
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of 
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2AG 
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
 - - - - - - -

MR S DRYDEN appeared on behalf of the APPELLANT

- - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T 

1.	MR JUSTICE GROSS:  On 1st August 2006, before magistrates, the appellant John Elijah Oliver Seit, having pleaded guilty to possession of an offensive weapon and affray, was committed to the Crown Court for sentence.  On 22nd November 2006 in the Crown Court at Teesside he was convicted after a trial of unlawful wounding and common assault.  On 13th December 2006 he was sentenced by Mr Recorder Lowe QC as follows:  Count 1, unlawful wounding, three years' imprisonment; count 2, common assault, six months' imprisonment consecutive.  On the previous matters before the magistrates: possession of an offensive weapon, six months' imprisonment and on the second offence which had been committed by the magistrates, affray, six months' imprisonment.  Both of those were concurrent with each other but consecutive to the sentences passed in respect of unlawful wounding and common assault.  The total sentence was therefore one of four years' imprisonment less 27 days spent in custody on remand.  The appellant appeals against sentence by leave of the single judge.
2.	The facts of the matter may be very shortly summarised.  The matters which originated before the magistrates centred on events on 20th March 2006 in a shopping centre at Darlington.  The appellant approached a security officer who was employed in the shopping arcade.  That officer was off-duty on the day and was out with his partner and children.  There was some history between the appellant and the security officer.  On this occasion there was an exchange and the appellant said something to the officer along the lines of "I won't fight in the street because I'll get banged up".  He did however threaten to cause a scene in front of the officer's children and then said: "Come down an alley and we'll sort this fight out down there".  The officer was not particularly afraid and walked towards the appellant laughing.  The appellant was angry and at that point opened his coat to reveal that he was carrying machete in a sheath.  The magistrates found that he did not brandish the weapon so far as that matter was concerned.
3.	With regard to the counts in the Crown Court, they relate to two incidents on 3rd May 2006.  On that day there was a loud argument between the appellant and his partner, a woman called Christine.  Christine's sister, Sarah Cook, went to the appellant's house and intervened, at which point the appellant grabbed her by the throat and threw her to the ground.  He also spat in her face.  She sustained some fingermarks to the side of the throat and was very distressed.  Those facts relate to count 2.  Worried about her sister, Sarah then telephoned her father, Mr David Cook, who was working out of the area but who drove directly home and arranged to take Sarah to the hospital.  On the way they saw the appellant standing in the street and Mr Cook stopped his car and, understandably, angrily confronted the appellant about what had happened.  The appellant then struck Mr Cook in the face fracturing his jaw.  Surgery was required and two metal plates were inserted into Mr Cook's jaw.  There was some loss of feeling down the left side of his face.  The appellant was convicted on both counts.
4.	Passing sentence, the judge said that the custody threshold was quite clearly passed.  He had regard to totality.  The judge took into account the fact that the appellant pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court.  There had however to be a custodial sentence.  As to the matters in the Crown Court, the appellant was of course perfectly entitled to a trial but it could not be said that he had expressed any remorse in respect of either assault.  The offences were very serious matters.  The way he behaved on the day was arrogant, bullying, abusive and cowardly.  It was appropriate that as these were separate incidents there should be consecutive terms.
5.	In his grounds of appeal and his submissions developed today, Mr Dryden, if we may say so, attractively developed his argument along the following lines.  First, the sentence for the section 20 matter was manifestly excessive.  Second, he pointed to the fact that in the light of other authorities it was difficult to justify the sentence of three years.  In particular Mr Dryden drew our attention to the authority of Remblance (1992) 13 Cr.App.R (S) 388 where in what might be termed a "road rage case" a sentence of 21 months' imprisonment after a trial was reduced to 12 months' imprisonment.  In that case the victim sustained a fractured jaw following a punch.  In the second particular case to which Mr Dryden drew our attention, a sentence of three years' imprisonment after a trial was reduced to one of two years' imprisonment.  That was the case of Singleton [1998] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 199.  That was a case concerning a glassing and, as we note, the sentence was reduced from three years to two years' imprisonment.  Mr Dryden underlined that here the high point of the Crown's case was that this was a single punch.  Third, Mr Dryden very fairly acknowledged that in both the cases of Singleton and Remblance the defendants had been men of good character.  That could not be said of the appellant here but his previous convictions were not of a similar nature to the section 20 offence with which we are concerned.  Finally, and realistically, Mr Dryden did not challenge the other sentences in respect of the matters before the magistrates or the common assault, nor did he challenge, again realistically, the fact that the sentence passed in respect of the common assault was made consecutive.
6.	These were serious offences committed by a man who was not of previous good character.  Those concerning the appellant's partner's sister and her father were disgraceful.  No credit was available for a plea of guilty.  Of remorse we are bound to say there was none.  As to the earlier offences, carrying a machete is anything but a trivial matter, whether brandished or not.  A custodial sentence of some length was inevitable, not least to remind the appellant that should he choose to ignore the law he will feel the consequences.  
7.	All that said, the question arises as to whether in the light of the authorities the three year sentence for this section 20 offence can be sustained.  In our judgment the important point here is that this was a section 20 offence not a section 18 offence.  The intention is of course very different.  That is not to minimise the seriousness of this offence and indeed single punches of this nature sometimes result in very tragic consequences.  But having regard to the authorities, even given the somewhat aggravated background of this matter, we are persuaded that the three year sentence was out of line and therefore too high.  It is unnecessary to take further time with the individual decisions cited to us.  
8.	Pausing there, and although touched upon by Mr Dryden briefly, we are not persuaded that there is any independent or additional ground on which the sentence is to be reduced by reason of totality.  
9.	Returning to the impact of our views on the sentence for the section 20 offence, in the circumstances we are persuaded to reduce the sentence of three years' imprisonment in respect of that count to one of two years' imprisonment.  All other sentences stay the same, so that the total is therefore reduced from one of four years' imprisonment to three years' imprisonment.  To such extent and such extent only this appeal is allowed.