Case No 202501454/A3 - [2025] EWCA Crim 1372

On 11 April 2025, in the Crown Court at Luton, the appellant, Kevin Wood was sentenced for a number of offences on three indictments, to which he had pleaded guilty, as follows. On the first indictment, 41B21195523, he was sentenced to ten months' imprisonment for each of two offences of assaulting an emergency worker (counts 1 and 2), those sentences to be served concurrently to each other. He was also sentenced to a term of one month's imprisonment for one offence of failure to surrender to bail, to be served concurrently.

On a second indictment, 41B21369823, the appellant was sentenced to 17 months' imprisonment for an offence of burglary of a convenience store in Tring (count 1), to be served consecutively to the sentences on the first indictment. He was also sentenced to eight months and four months' imprisonment respectively for two offences of handling stolen goods (counts 4 and 5), both sentences to be served concurrently.

On a third indictment, 41B21445024, the appellant was sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment for an offence of burglary of a primary school (count 4), to be served consecutively to the earlier sentences. He was also sentenced to three months' imprisonment for an offence of assault by beating (count 2), that sentence to be served consecutively, and three months for an offence of common assault (count 8), that sentence also to be served consecutively.

On this third indictment, he was also sentenced to four and six months' imprisonment respectively for two offences of theft (counts 6 and 10), those sentences to be served concurrently. He was also sentenced to a term of four months’ imprisonment for one count of aggravated vehicle taking (count 7) to be served concurrently.

A suspended sentence was also activated with a reduced term of five months’ imprisonment, to be served consecutively.

The total sentence was therefore one of 52 months' imprisonment. The appellant appeals against sentence by leave of the single judge.

The appellant was aged 46 at the time of sentencing. He has an extensive record of previous criminal convictions comprising 41 convictions for 108 offences committed between 1996 and 2024. They include offences of dishonesty, such as burglary and handling stolen goods. They also include offences against the person, such as assault or affray. The judge did not consider that a pre-sentence report was required. We do not consider that a report is necessary.

The judge's sentencing remarks are clear, concise and comprehensive. We deal first with the two offences of assaulting an emergency worker. They involved two police officers, PC Durrant and PC Edwards. They were performing their duties as police officers and were seeking to arrest the appellant. The appellant strangled PC Durrant. He carried out a prolonged and persistent attack on PC Edwards, causing multiple bruising.

The judge regarded both offences as involving culpability A in terms of the sentencing guidelines: in one case because of the strangulation and in the other case because it was a prolonged and persistent assault. He considered that the offence on PC Durrant fell into category 1 harm, as it had caused more than mere physical harm or distress. The starting point for an A1 offence was a high level community order with a range of up to 26 weeks' custody.

The judge considered that there were aggravating factors. They included the appellant's previous convictions, which themselves included assault on police constables, an escape from lawful custody and an offence of affray. The judge also took into account that there were two victims, although he said that he intended to pass concurrent, not consecutive, sentences. He also took into account that these were assaults on police officers who, in accordance with their duty, were seeking to arrest the appellant at the time that they were assaulted.

The mitigation, which applied to all the offences on the three indictments, was that the appellant had significant mental health problems. Furthermore, and to his credit, the appellant had been trying to turn his life around. He had behaved well in custody; he had obtained enhanced status in the prison; he had undertaken education; and he had obtained a job. He had, therefore, taken steps to address his offending behaviour.

Nevertheless, the judge considered that the aggravating features outweighed the mitigating features. He considered that the appropriate sentence after trial would have been 15 months' imprisonment for each offence. That would have to be reduced by 15 per cent to reflect the time at which the appellant pleaded guilty. That would reduce the sentence for each offence to 12 months' imprisonment. He further reduced each sentence by two months to reflect the principle of totality – that is to ensure that the total sentence for all the offending across the three indictments was just and proportionate.

In relation to the Tring burglary, the judge said that this was a burglary of commercial premises which took place on 20 April 2023. Culpability was level B within the relevant Sentencing Council guidelines, as the offence involved significant planning and going equipped for burglary. Harm was category 1. The starting point for a B1 offence was one year's custody, with a range from a medium level community order to two years' custody.