A MAN jailed for a brutal attack on his ex-partner has had his sentence cut – after the Court of Appeal found the Royal Court was wrongly told he had previous convictions for weapons offences.
Andrew Scott Page was sentenced to four-and-a-half years in prison last August for a “sustained” and deliberate assault in December 2022, which included attempted eye-gouging, strangulation, kicking and threats with a knife.
But in a judgment made public this week following a hearing earlier in May, the Court of Appeal ruled that the sentence must be reduced to four years, after learning that the sentencing court had mistakenly been told Page’s “extensive” criminal record included convictions for “possessing offensive and prohibited weapons” – when it did not.
Crown Advocate Christina Hall, representing the Attorney General, admitted that there had been a mistake but argued that it was uncertain what factors the Royal Court took into account when reaching their sentence.
However, the Court of Appeal said that there “has to be a risk that the Jurats were influenced to some degree by that misstatement”.
“That possibility is rendered more plausible by the fact that the Defendant’s offence involved the use of a knife, so previous offences related to offensive weapons might have been thought to be relevant,” the Court of Appeal noted in their judgment.
This, the Court found, meant the sentence had to be reconsidered.
Although the appeal against his conviction had already been dismissed, Page was granted leave to appeal against his sentence.
While the Court rejected the bulk of Page’s complaints, including criticisms of the victim’s credibility and the medical evidence, it agreed that the factual error constituted a serious enough mistake to warrant a review.
Advocate Hall argued that, notwithstanding the error over Page’s previous convictions, four-and-a-half years remained appropriate. However, Advocate Olaf Blakeley, appearing as amicus curiae, said three-and-a-half years should be considered instead.
Page, who represented himself, had also argued the sentence was “manifestly excessive” – a claim the Court rejected, stating that while the original sentence was at the top end of the appropriate range, it did not cross the threshold of being plainly too harsh.
Taking into account the error, the Court of Appeal decided that the case “should have a starting point of four years”.
“We agree with the Royal Court that there is no real mitigation available to reduce that sentence,” the Court added.
Sir William Bailhache, President of the Appeal Court, heard the case alongside Sir Richard McMahon and Mr Michael Furness KC.
