Introduction

This commentary examines the recent judgment in the case of Steven, R. v ([2025] EWCA Crim 154) rendered by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on 11 February 2025. The case involves a convicted defendant who was involved in a highly organised conspiracy to commit robbery which culminated in a brutal murder. The trial court had convicted the applicant, aged 29 at the time, of conspiracy to commit robbery and murder after a jury trial at Bolton Crown Court. Key issues raised on appeal include the defendant’s relative role in the conspiracy—as he was not considered to be the mastermind—and the alleged misapplication of the principle regarding the absence of an intention to kill, particularly when considering the aggravation due to prolonged suffering inflicted on the victim. The appellant's grounds of appeal challenge the sentence on these bases. However, the appellate court ultimately upheld the sentencing decision based on established legal principles and factual findings.

Summary of the Judgment

In the hearing, the Court of Appeal reviewed the trial court’s findings and the sentencing rationale where the defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 37 years for murder, with an additional concurrent sentence for conspiracy to commit robbery. The judge at trial had determined that, despite the applicant not being the mastermind, his central role in the conspiracy justified a severe sentencing outcome. A significant contention on appeal was whether the judge had improperly ‘double counted’ the victim’s prolonged suffering, first as an aggravating factor and then in reducing mitigating considerations regarding the lack of intention to kill. The Court of Appeal confirmed the trial judge’s conclusions by emphasizing that:

• The applicant’s central role in the conspiracy was supported by sufficient evidence and was subject to deference as a finding of fact made at trial.
• Even if the absence of an intention to kill was acknowledged, the extensive and prolonged torture inflicted on the victim significantly outweighed that mitigating factor.
• The technical issue regarding the disputed 999-call was rendered irrelevant by the overall evidentiary context and the judge’s findings.

As a result, the court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Though the judgment does not list multiple explicit case names as precedents, it is clear that the decision was anchored in established principles regarding:

• The deference afforded to trial judges in their findings of fact, particularly when these findings are not challenged with evidence of internal inconsistency or irrationality. The appellate court reiterated that the trial judge’s determination of the defendant’s central role in the conspiracy is a factual finding entitled to significant respect.
• The principles governing the interaction of mitigating and aggravating factors in sentencing. Established case law supports weighing the prolonged period of victim suffering as an aggravating factor which, in such severe criminal contexts, may substantially temper the impact of any mitigating evidence such as the lack of intention to kill.

The court was therefore influenced by these underlying precedents which guide the balance between factual determinations and the proportionality of sentences in cases involving organised criminal conduct and excessive violence.

Legal Reasoning

In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal dissected the trial judge's reasoning on several key points:

• Factual Assessment and Central Role: The court held that the trial judge’s assessment that the applicant played a central role in a well-orchestrated conspiracy was supported by consistent evidence – notably the sequence of events culminating in the extremely violent murder of Thomas Campbell. The deference to the trial judge’s factual findings was critical as appellate courts are generally unwilling to overturn conclusions that are firmly embedded within the evidentiary matrix.
• Intent and Mitigation: Although the defendant’s legal team argued that there was no intention to kill—as evidenced by, for example, the application of a tourniquet—the trial judge correctly balanced this mitigating factor against the aggravating context of prolonged torture. The court confirmed that acknowledging the victim’s two-hour prolonged suffering did not constitute double counting, but rather provided a legitimate measure of the overall brutality which significantly reduced any mitigating value attributed to the lack of explicit intent.
• Issues with the 999-Call: The controversy surrounding whether the 999-call was made by the victim or one of the attackers was considered non-determinative, given that it did not alter the established fact of no intention to kill. This analysis further underscored that the central evidence was the extensive violence and methodical nature of the criminal act, rather than peripheral issues.

Impact on Future Cases

The judgment reinforces several important legal principles that are likely to influence future adjudication in severe criminal cases:

• Centrality of Factual Findings: The strong deference to trial judge findings may guide future courts to uphold sentencing decisions where the detailed factual record supports significant involvement even if the defendant did not act as the mastermind.
• Balancing Aggravation and Mitigation: This case underscores the judiciary’s approach to evaluating complex mitigating evidence. In scenarios where the physical and psychological torment inflicted on a victim is prolonged and severe, such aggravating circumstances may outweigh mitigating factors like the lack of a premeditated intention to kill.
• Methodical Approach in Sentencing Arguments: The analysis provided in this case may serve as a guide in future appeals when similar arguments regarding “double counting” are raised. It provides clarity on how sentencing should consider overlapping factors without improperly inflating the effect of either mitigation or aggravation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

For clarity, several legal terms and concepts within the judgment can be simplified:

• Central Role versus Mastermind: A defendant can play a pivotal or central role in a criminal conspiracy without being the mastermind. The mastermind is the primary planner and leader, whereas a central participant might be deeply involved without holding the top leadership position.
• Aggravating Factors: These are circumstances that increase the severity of the crime, such as extreme violence, prolonged suffering, or organized criminal planning. They are used to justify harsher sentences.
• Mitigating Factors: These involve aspects that could lessen a defendant’s culpability, such as lack of premeditated intent. However, in this case, even if an absence of intent was acknowledged, it was heavily outweighed by the victim’s extreme suffering.
• Double Counting: This refers to the improper practice of giving undue weight to the same factor twice when calculating a sentence. The court made it clear that recognizing prolonged suffering as an aggravating factor while simultaneously considering it as reducing any mitigating aspect does not constitute double counting if each is proportionately assessed.

Conclusion

The judgment in Steven, R. v ([2025] EWCA Crim 154) establishes that the trial judge’s detailed fact-finding and balanced approach to weighing both the aggravating and mitigating aspects of severe violence are to be accorded considerable deference. It reinforces that a defendant’s central participation in a criminal conspiracy can warrant a significant sentence, irrespective of not being the mastermind. Moreover, the decision confirms that extensive, brutal violence—exemplified by prolonged suffering inflicted on the victim—may justifiably outweigh logical mitigating elements such as a lack of intention to kill.

Overall, this judgment will likely serve as a persuasive precedent in future cases involving complex considerations of role, intent, and the proportionality of sentence determinations in the context of violent and premeditated crimes.