Lancaster man has sentence cut for doorstep stabbing

James Hill's prison sentence has been extended after a hearing at the Court of Appeal today.  Pic: Anthony Devlin/PA Wire

James Hill's prison sentence has been extended after a hearing at the Court of Appeal today. Pic: Anthony Devlin/PA Wire

Share this article
2
Have your say

A thug who stabbed a pregnant woman on her own doorstep had his sentence cut - after top judges ruled that his victim was “not particularly vulnerable”.

Danny Reece Jerman of Lancaster and his victim had been locked in a long-running feud in the months leading up to the March 2015 attack, London’s Appeal Court heard.

The pair had rowed after he told mutual friends they had a “sexual encounter”, which she denied ever took place.

Jerman finally saw red after claiming he had been the target of a “sustained campaign” by his victim.

He accused her of sending his girlfriend “abusive” Facebook messages.

Jerman, 23, drove to his pregnant victim’s home and confronted her at her door when she emerged in her dressing gown, said Mr Justice Holgate.

The pair shouted and swore at each other before Jerman returned to his car to grab a knife.

He lashed out with the weapon, catching his victim, who was 12 weeks pregnant, on the arm and in the back as she fled back inside.

Jerman, of Chapel Street, Lancaster, was jailed for five years and four months at Preston Crown Court last July.

He admitted wounding with intent and possessing an offensive weapon.

But his case reached the Appeal Court as he successfully challenged the sentence - which was slashed to four years.

Mr Justice Holgate, sitting with Lord Justice Lloyd Jones and Mr Justice Griffith-Williams, said Jerman had “lost the plot” before the attack.

There had been bad blood between them for some time, he said, and there were clearly “faults on both sides”.

He had spoken of “stabbing and killing” his victim but, despite the savagery of the attack, her wounds were relatively slight.

Allowing Jerman’s appeal, the judge said: “In this case we accept the submission that her willingness to use significant violence herself - indicated by the messages she sent and her aggressive behaviour outside the property - undermined the view that she was a particularly vulnerable individual.”