[2025] EWCA Crim 1296

On 18 July 2025, in the Crown Court at Cambridge, the appellant, Sona Godlova (aged 19) was sentenced by His Honour Judge Enright for a number of offences. She was sentenced to 24 weeks' detention in a young offender institution for each of two offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. No separate penalty was imposed in respect of five offences of assault on an emergency worker. In respect of an earlier incident no separate penalty was imposed for an offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm or an offence of affray.

The appellant now appeals against sentence with the leave of the single judge.

The facts may be stated shortly. On 23 August 2024, at about 5 pm, police were called to an address in Peterborough. Present at the address were the appellant's mother and her stepfather. The appellant was at the address and had shut herself in the upstairs bathroom. She had been refusing to leave and her behaviour had become increasingly erratic. One police officer tried, but failed, to persuade her to leave the bathroom. Eventually, access was gained. Another policeman tried to hold the appellant to move her. However, the appellant started to smash her head on the shower glass and then she headbutted the door frame. She was manoeuvred to the floor, but she headbutted the floor. Two more officers came to try to assist. The appellant resisted the officers and tried to harm herself. Her mother also came to help, but the appellant (as it was put) latched on to her arm with her teeth. That was the first count of assault. The appellant kicked one of the police officers on the legs and she headbutted another police officer. Her behaviour was described as alternately calm and hysterical. She was placed into a police van. She headbutted the walls of the van and when removed from the police van, she kicked another police officer to her legs.

The following day, at the police station, she grabbed two more officers. There was a fight and the appellant had to be restrained. She was manoeuvred to the ground, during which she bit the arm of one of the police officers. That was the second offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The kicks and the grabbing of the police officers comprised the offences of assaulting an emergency worker, for which no separate penalty was imposed.

The other offences related to an incident which occurred about eight months earlier, when a group of people beat up two or three males. The appellant joined in by kicking one of the victims whilst he was unconscious on the ground. No separate penalty was imposed for those offences.

The appellant was born in July 2006. She was aged just 18 at the time of the two offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and was aged 19 when she was sentenced. She had one previous conviction of being drunk and disorderly and assault on an emergency worker, which occurred in May 2024. No separate penalty was imposed for those offences, but she was ordered to pay £50 compensation.

There was a pre-sentence report in which the harm to the emergency workers was acknowledged. They had endured aggressive and violent behaviour. The author's assessment was that the motivation for her actions was the appellant's negative attitude to police and the perception that she was acting in self defence. The author of the report said that it was her assessment that the appellant's actions were "an impulsive response to a perceived threat, leading to her resistance and aggression during the altercation". The author said that the appellant exhibited "significant difficulties with anger management and tempter control". Having carried out an assessment, the author of the report considered that the appellant's immaturity was a likely factor contributing to the risk of causing serious harm and re-offending and that there was a need for intervention to promote maturity. The author assessed the circumstances of the offence and considered the impact on the appellant if she were to be subjected to a custodial sentence. It was noted that incarceration would make her existing mental health challenges worse, especially given her chaotic lifestyle and her anxiety. It was considered that a custodial sentence might not address the root causes of the offending. The author proposed the imposition of a 24 month suspended sentence, with a requirement to complete 40 days of rehabilitation activity and to complete an unpaid work requirement with a specified number of hours.