Calum McNicholas successfully opposes Attorney General’s Reference in the Court of Appeal.

Calum defended a man convicted of wounding with intent. The victim was left with life-threatening injuries, having been stabbed repeatedly in the torso. The Defendant was sentenced to 8.5 years imprisonment at Durham Crown Court. This sentence was referred as being unduly lenient by the Attorney General in that the Judge should have taken an A1 starting point of 12 years, rather than the A2 starting point of 7. The argument fell on whether the Judge was entitled to reflect the overall harm, including injury and impact; or whether he was required to impose a sentence within the A1 range due to the life-threatening nature of the injuries.

Calum submitted that: a) the AG’s position oversimplified the sentencing exercise which requires the judge to do more than simply identify one feature of harm; b) if the SG’s submissions were accepted, they would unduly restrict the ability of judges to reflect the overall harm, including impact; and, c) from those two submissions, the sentence imposed was within the reasonable range.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the above submissions, and the reference application was therefore dismissed. Calum’s submissions were described by the Court of appeal as being “clear, cogent, and very persuasive”. 

If you would like to instruct Calum or any of the Criminal Team please contact the clerks here.