Di Marco & Anor v R: Upholding Sentencing Standards and Dangerousness Assessments in Attempted Murder

Introduction

The case of Di Marco & Anor v R ([2024] EWCA Crim 19) represents a significant legal confrontation within the English and Welsh judicial system, specifically addressing the complexities of sentencing in attempted murder cases. The appellants, Vito Di Marco and Darren Hattersley, were convicted of attempted murder and subsequently sought to appeal their sentences. This case delves into the nuances of sentencing guidelines, the assessment of dangerousness, and the judicial discretion exercised in high-stakes criminal proceedings.

At the core of the case lies a longstanding animosity between Di Marco and the victim, Kevin Hickey, culminating in a meticulously planned assassination attempt. The legal discourse revolves around whether the original sentences were appropriate, given the severity of the offenses and the risk posed by the appellants.

Summary of the Judgment

In the Crown Court at Warwick on January 10, 2023, Vito Di Marco and Darren Hattersley were convicted of attempted murder. Di Marco received a life sentence with a minimum term of 22 years and 280 days, while Hattersley was sentenced to an extended determinate sentence of 35 years, comprising 30 years of custodial term and a 5-year extended licence period. The co-accused, Nathan Odley, was also sentenced similarly to Hattersley.

Subsequent appeals by Di Marco and Hattersley challenged the original sentencing decisions. Di Marco contended that the judge had erred in assessing the harm inflicted on Hickey and had unjustly categorized him as more dangerous than his co-accused, leading to an excessively severe sentence. Hattersley argued that the harm was overstated and that the dangerous offender classification was unwarranted.

Upon review, the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) upheld the original sentences, affirming the Crown Court's assessments and the appropriateness of the sentencing under existing guidelines.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Judgment notably references Attorney-General's Reference 27 of 2013 (R v Burinskas) [2014] EWCA Crim 334, which elucidates the factors to consider when determining the appropriateness of a life sentence. This precedent emphasizes the seriousness of the offense, the offender's criminal history, the level of danger posed, and the reliability of predicting when such danger might cease.

By invoking this case, the Court of Appeal underscored the necessity of a comprehensive evaluation of both the offense's gravity and the offender's potential for rehabilitation or continued risk.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal's legal reasoning centered on the application of the Sentencing Guidelines, particularly the categorization of harm and culpability. The original judge classified the offense under Category A for very high culpability due to the use of a firearm, financial gain motive, and the resulting permanent injury and psychological trauma inflicted on Mr. Hickey.

In assessing dangerousness, the court considered the meticulous planning and execution of the crime, the offenders' willingness to use lethal force, and the sophisticated cover-up attempts post-offense. The appellants' lack of recent violent convictions did not mitigate the inherent risk they posed, as dangerousness was established based on the facts of the offense itself.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that the original sentencing adequately reflected the severity of the crime and the offenders' dangerous nature. The differentiation in sentencing between Di Marco and Hattersley, with Di Marco receiving a life sentence, was deemed appropriate due to his role as the instigator and mastermind behind the assassination attempt.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the robustness of the existing Sentencing Guidelines in handling complex and severe criminal cases. It emphasizes that high levels of planning, use of weapons, and the resultant severe harm and psychological impact on victims are critical factors in determining sentencing severity.

Moreover, the reaffirmation of the dangerous offender category without necessitating recent violent convictions broadens the scope for addressing individuals who pose significant risks based on the nature of their offenses alone. This ensures that the judicial system remains proactive in mitigating potential future threats posed by such individuals.

Legal practitioners can anticipate this judgment to serve as a precedent in cases where the offender's dangerousness is derived from meticulous criminal planning and the potential for ongoing risk, rather than solely from an extensive criminal history.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Sentencing Categories

The Sentencing Guidelines classify offenses based on the level of culpability and the harm caused. In this case:

• Category A: Very high culpability, involving severe harm or sophisticated criminal planning.
• Category 1: Offenses resulting in permanent irreversible injury or significant psychological impact.
• Category 2A: Serious physical or psychological harm, warranting extended custodial sentences.

Dangerous Offender Status

An individual is classified as a dangerous offender if they pose a significant risk of harm to the public, either currently or in the foreseeable future. This status justifies the imposition of longer sentences and extended licence periods to protect society.

Extended Determinate Sentences

This refers to fixed-term imprisonment coupled with an extended period during which the offender remains under supervision after release. It serves to mitigate risks posed by offenders deemed dangerous.

Conclusion

The Di Marco & Anor v R case underscores the judiciary's steadfast commitment to applying and upholding established sentencing guidelines, particularly in cases involving high culpability and dangerousness. By affirming the original sentences, the Court of Appeal has reinforced the principles that ensure justice is served not only in response to the gravity of the offense but also in safeguarding the public from potential threats posed by offenders.

The judgment illustrates the delicate balance the courts maintain between penalizing wrongdoing and assessing the potential future risks posed by offenders. It serves as a pivotal reference point for future cases, emphasizing that thorough evaluation of both the offense and the offender's propensity for danger is paramount in the sentencing process.

Ultimately, this case reaffirms the integrity of the English and Welsh legal system in addressing and deterring severe criminal behavior through meticulously considered and proportionate sentencing.