Introduction

The case of Gillett, R. v R ([2023] EWCA Crim 1530) before the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) serves as a pivotal reference in understanding the judicial approach towards sentencing in cases of riot, particularly concerning the identification and treatment of instigators. The appellant, aged 26 at the time of sentencing, was convicted of riot under section 1(1) of the Public Order Act 1986. The core of the appeal centered on the appellant’s role within the riot and whether the sentencing was manifestly excessive.

Summary of the Judgment

On November 3, 2023, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s application for leave to appeal against his sentence of four years and eight months' imprisonment, initially imposed by His Honour Judge Patrick in February 2023. The appellant had pleaded guilty to the offence of riot, which involved significant property damage and assaults on police officers during a protest in Bristol. The sentencing considered various factors, including the appellant's actions captured on CCTV, his previous convictions, and his personal circumstances outlined in the pre-sentence report.

The appellate court examined the grounds of appeal, which included arguments that the judge erred in categorizing the appellant as an instigator, failed to consider the appellant’s mitigation factors adequately, and placed undue emphasis on his previous convictions. After meticulous analysis, the court upheld the original sentencing decision, affirming the judge's approach as measured and consistent with the sentencing guidelines.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key legal precedents that shape the current understanding of riot sentencing:

• Public Order Act 1986: Specifically section 1(1) which defines the offence of riot.
• Criminal Justice Act 1967: Used to note the not guilty verdict for the arson charge under section 17.
• R v Fawcett (1983) 5 Cr App R(S) 158: This case establishes the standard for assessing unfair disparity in sentencing.

These precedents provided a foundation for assessing the appellant's role and the proportionality of his sentence within the established legal framework.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s legal reasoning hinged on the correct application of the Sentencing Council Guidelines for riot. The appellant's actions were scrutinized to determine his culpability category, specifically whether he acted as an instigator (Category A) or not. The judge identified seven key actions by the appellant that contributed to escalating the violence and disorder, such as climbing onto police vans, using a bicycle to breach police station windows, and encouraging others to engage in destructive behavior.

Despite the prosecution's argument for a Category 1A offence, the judge categorized the appellant’s actions under Category 1B, noting a deliberate but not the most severe level of participation in the riot. The judge's assessment considered both the prosecution's evidence of the appellant's instigating role and the appellant’s mitigation claims of minimal group association and peaceful intentions.

The appellate court found that the trial judge had appropriately balanced aggravating factors—such as the role in escalating violence and previous convictions—with mitigating factors, including the appellant’s reflections on his actions and attempts at rehabilitation. The court concluded that the sentencing was neither manifestly excessive nor improperly influenced by selective evidence from CCTV footage.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the judiciary's meticulous approach to categorizing roles in riots and ensures that sentencing aligns closely with the perpetrator's level of involvement. By upholding the sentencing decision, the court underscores the importance of detailed evidence in establishing an individual's culpability level. Future cases involving public disorder and riot will reference this decision to guide judges in assessing instigator roles and applying appropriate sentencing ranges.

Additionally, the case illustrates the courts' stance on balancing aggravating and mitigating factors, providing clearer directives for handling appeals centered on sentencing severity. This contributes to the consistency and fairness in judicial proceedings related to public order offences.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Culpability Categories in Riot Sentencing

The Sentencing Council Guidelines categorize offenders based on their role and the severity of their actions during a riot:

• Category 1A: Offenders who used or intended to use highly dangerous weapons, were instigators, or whose actions significantly escalated the level of violence and disorder.
• Category 1B: Offenders involved in riots without the use of highly dangerous weapons but who nevertheless contributed to the disorder and violence.
• Category B: Offenders involved in riots without contributing to escalation or employing dangerous weapons.

In this case, the appellant was placed in Category 1B, indicating a significant but not the highest level of culpability.

Beckoning During Riots

"Beckoning" refers to actions by an individual that encourage or incite others to participate in violent or disorderly behavior. In this judgment, the court examined whether the appellant's gestures, such as waving his arms and urging others towards police stations, constituted beckoning that escalated the riot.

Manifest Excessiveness in Sentencing

A sentence is deemed "manifestly excessive" if it is grossly disproportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the offender's culpability. The appellant argued that his sentence was disproportionate, but the court found no evidence to support this claim, affirming that the sentencing was within the appropriate legal parameters.

Conclusion

The Gillett v R [2023] EWCA Crim 1530 judgment serves as a critical examination of the factors influencing sentencing in riot cases, particularly the identification of instigators and their impact on the escalation of violence. By affirming the original sentencing decision, the Court of Appeal reinforced the necessity of a balanced and evidence-based approach in categorizing offences and determining appropriate penalties. This case highlights the judiciary's commitment to upholding fairness and consistency in sentencing, ensuring that each case is assessed on its unique merits and circumstances. Legal practitioners and future litigants can look to this judgment for guidance on the nuanced application of sentencing guidelines in the context of public order offences.