R v Stringer

The case of R v Stringer involved the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to an offence of unlawful grievous bodily harm. The applicant was sentenced to a three-year prison term with parole eligibility after one year. The applicant had orchestrated a surprise attack on the complainant, leading to injuries that necessitated surgery for the applicant to prevent permanent numbness in his face, while the complainant suffered few permanent injuries. The sentencing judge, however, characterised the complainant as having permanent numbness along his face, a characterisation the applicant contested.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge had erred in characterising the nature of the complainant’s ongoing injuries, which had implications for the severity of the sentence imposed. The applicant argued that the characterisation of the complainant’s injuries as permanent was incorrect, which had influenced the sentencing decision. The court was tasked with determining if this characterisation constituted an error of law or fact that warranted interference with the original sentence.

The court found that the sentencing judge had indeed erred in characterising the complainant’s injuries as permanent. The evidence did not support the assertion of permanent numbness, and this misunderstanding affected the overall sentencing. Given the error, the court granted the applicant leave to appeal against the sentence. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was varied. The applicant was to serve a two-year prison term instead of three years, with parole eligibility set for 10 January 2015, rather than the original date of 10 July 2015.