BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE]

England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Cullen, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 412 (21 February 2025)
URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2025/412.html
Cite as: [2025] EWCA Crim 412

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.

Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWCA Crim 412
Case No 2024/01907/A2

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT MANCHESTER MINSHULL STREET
(MR RECORDER PETER ATHERTON.) [T20227408]

Royal Courts of Justice
London
WC2A 2LL
21 February 2025

B e f o r e :

LORD JUSTICE DINGEMANS
MRS JUSTICE CHEEMA-GRUBB
THE RECORDER OF HULL AND THE EAST RIDING
(His Honour Judge Thackray KC)
(Sitting as a Judge of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division)

____________________

REX
- v -
CARL CULLEN

____________________

Computer Aided Transcription of Epiq Europe Ltd,
Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: HYPERLINK "mailto:rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk"
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

Non Counsel Application
____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

    LORD JUSTICE DINGEMANS: I shall ask Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb to give the judgment of the court.

    MRS JUSTICE CHEEMA-GRUBB:

  1. This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence, following refusal by the single judge.
  2. On 6 February 2024, following a trial in the Crown Court at Minshull Street Manchester before Mr Recorder Peter Atherton and a jury, the applicant was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and criminal damage.
  3. On 1 May 2024, he was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment for the assault. No separate penalty was imposed for the criminal damage. The statutory surcharge order was made, as well as two restraining orders of indefinite duration.
  4. The background was a brutal attack by the applicant on his partner, Helen Taylor, at her home address in Rochdale. The applicant is significantly larger in stature than Ms Taylor. They had argued and the applicant had accused Ms Taylor of infidelity. The argument persisted over a period from the night of 26 October 2022 into the early morning of 28 October. The applicant took away Ms Taylor's phones and punched her repeatedly in the face, abdomen and genital area. He also used his feet to kick her.
  5. One of her neighbours was aware of arguments between the couple and at about 5.30 am on 28 October she was alerted to a loud disturbance and screaming. She decided to try and get Ms Taylor away from the applicant and away on the pretext of taking her for a coffee. The neighbour found Ms Taylor gravely injured and rescued her by pulling her out of the house. The applicant was abusive. He said that she was a "mess" and repeated his assertions of infidelity.
  6. We have seen photographs of Ms Taylor taken by the neighbour which show a battered and bruised, terrified woman. We have also seen photographs of the damage done to her home.
  7. Ms Taylor was taken to Manchester Royal Infirmary where significant internal bleeding from a perforated bowel was diagnosed, as well as lacerations to the liver, bleeding on the brain and hypoxic brain injury, which occurs when the brain is deprived of oxygen for a period. She was transferred to Salford Royal Foundation Trust, where a full examination revealed bruises around the orbit of her eyes, to her lower abdomen and to both genital and perineal areas. The injuries were plainly life-threatening. It was assessed that she had less then 60 per cent chance of survival. Urgent abdominal surgery to repair the perforation and protect her from a leakage of blood and faecal matter into the abdomen, and neurological procedures were required to save her life. She was placed into an induced coma and spent 20 days in hospital.
  8. In an Achieving Best Evidence interview recorded two months later, at a time when she was experiencing memory loss and impaired mental function, and was being supported in a women's refuge, Ms Taylor said that she had been trying to get away from the applicant while he punched and kicked her. She believed that he would kill her.
  9. In a Victim Personal Statement she described the attack as the applicant using her "as a punching bag", as well as destroying her home. By March 2024 – nearly 18 months after the incident – she was still suffering blackouts which caused her to fall and injure herself. She was experiencing impaired balance, and panic attacks which she had not previously had. Her confidence, mental health and emotional and psychological wellbeing had all been affected adversely by the attack. She had trust issues, as well as enhanced fear and concern about her safety and security. She had had to move home. She still slept with the light on and suffered flashbacks, which themselves led to panic attacks.
  10. During the course of the attack, the applicant had damaged the television set in her home and had also slashed her sofa with a knife. The punishment for the criminal damage was taken into account in the sentence imposed on the assault.
  11. The applicant was aged 53 at the time of sentence. He had acquired 18 convictions for 35 offences, including eight convictions for violence. He had previously been sent to prison in 1994 at the Bolton Crown Court for 30 months for two offences contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Subsequent to the instant matters, in February 2024 he was sent to prison at the Burnley Crown Court for 13 months for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to section 47 of the 1861 Act.
  12. The Recorder had the benefit of a short psychiatric report dated 24 April 2024, which described a troubled and traumatic history from childhood, and an offender who has considerable social communication and interaction difficulties. He was likely to meet the criteria for cocaine dependence, and he had also abused alcohol prior to this offence.
  13. A full assessment would be required to establish whether the applicant has Autism Spectrum Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, or Personality Disorder, but the court has seen further medical evidence, including notes which indicate that in 2017 an initial assessment of ASD was made.
  14. The proposed grounds of appeal are of the applicant's own composition. They fall under three headings. Firstly, the applicant wishes to argue that when applying the relevant sentencing guideline, the Recorder failed to allow adequately for the fact that he did not use a weapon and had not carried out a sustained attack.
  15. Secondly, he submits that no mitigation was advanced by his barrister.
  16. Thirdly, he complains that no pre-sentence report was obtained and that insufficient regard was had by the Recorder to the applicant's own health situation, his good behaviour on remand, and his efforts to address his addictions.
  17. Taking these in turn, we have read the sentencing remarks and it is clear that the Recorder applied the sentencing guideline entirely properly. The applicant was sentenced on the basis that he attacked his partner with a combination of forceful punches to the head sufficient to cause bleeding to the brain, and punches and kicks to the abdomen with such force that they caused life-threatening internal injuries. It was a prolonged and persistent assault on a helpless victim which left her with life-changing consequences. It was a category 1A assault. The contrary is unarguable. The starting point was therefore 12 years' imprisonment. The Recorder stated that the starting point would have required an upwards adjustment for aggravating features present, given the applicant's previous convictions for violence, only some of which we have summarised, but most pertinently to reflect the fact that the offence was committed while he was on bail, awaiting trial for the offence for which he was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment in February 2024.
  18. The Recorder also had explicit regard to the domestic abuse guideline and noted in particular that the applicant abused his power in that relationship. The Recorder summarised the limited mitigation available to the applicant, including his difficult childhood and early adult history, as well as the more positive outlook he now had, namely that he was sober and remorseful, had found faith, and intended to study theology.
  19. Optimistic though these matters are, they did not provide weighty mitigation and, in any event, were more than balanced out by the other features we have mentioned.
  20. The Recorder assessed dangerousness, but concluded that, although the applicant had demonstrated himself to be dangerous within the strict definition in the Sentencing Code, it was appropriate to draw back from passing a life or an extended sentence in favour of a standard determinate sentence which would provide a period of licence and, overall, given its length, would address the risk the applicant poses. In imposing the term he did, rather than a longer term, the Recorder took care to ensure that the sentence he imposed was fair and proportionate in light of the fact that it would be served consecutively to the sentence for assault on a female that the applicant was already serving.
  21. There is an equal lack of merit in the complaint that no mitigation was advanced on the applicant's behalf. The Court of Appeal Office has obtained a transcript of the mitigation. The mitigation was realistic. In a case such as this, after a trial, the advocate is limited in what can properly be said, but he did refer to the applicant's remorse, his good behaviour and prospects in custody. We do not consider that anything else could reasonably have been said that would have benefited the applicant.
  22. Finally, we turn to the absence of a pre-sentence report. The law requires a pre-sentence report, unless the court considers it to be unnecessary. We agree with the Recorder that in this case no such report was necessary. The applicant was, as we have indicated, familiar with the court process. He had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment a few months earlier. There was a psychiatric report available, and a substantial custodial sentence was inevitable. We cannot see what purpose there could have been in obtaining a pre-sentence report.
  23. Having independently considered for ourselves all the material provided and the submissions made by the applicant, we conclude that there is no merit in any proposed ground of appeal.
  24. Accordingly, this renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence must be refused.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2025/412.html