Introduction

Long & Ors v. R. ([2020] EWCA Crim 1729) is a significant judgment delivered by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on December 16, 2020. The case involves three young offenders—Henry Long, Albert Bowers, and Jessie Cole—convicted of manslaughter and conspiracy to steal, arising from a single series of events that tragically resulted in the death of Police Constable Andrew Harper during a theft-related escapade.

The core issues addressed in this judgment include the applicability of unlawful act manslaughter within the context of joint enterprise or conspiracy, the interpretation and adherence to sentencing guidelines, and the procedural correctness in sentencing young offenders. This commentary explores the background, court findings, legal reasoning, cited precedents, and the broader impact of this landmark decision.

Summary of the Judgment

The appellants, Long, Bowers, and Cole, were involved in a conspiracy to steal items such as quad bikes using a pre-purchased car designed for such expeditions. During one of their thefts, while escaping from a police pursuit, the car dragged Police Constable Harper, leading to his death. The court convicted Bowers and Cole of manslaughter, while Long was acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter and conspiracy to steal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Attorney General's applications for leave to refer the sentences as unduly lenient, affirming the original sentencing decisions. The court upheld the principle that participation in a dangerous conspiracy can render an unlawful act manslaughter even without specific intent to cause death. Additionally, the judgment addressed procedural errors concerning the disqualification from driving for Bowers and Cole, rectifying them by substituting appropriate detention and training orders.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment heavily references pivotal cases that shape the landscape of unlawful act manslaughter:

• R v Church (1966) 1 QB 59: Established that not all unlawful acts result in manslaughter; the act must carry a risk recognized by sober and reasonable people.
• R v Jogee [2017] AC 287: Clarified joint enterprise liability, emphasizing the need for foresight of potential harm.
• R v F (J) & E (N) [2015] EWCA Crim 351: Affirmed that the involvement in an unlawful act, even without direct intent, can result in manslaughter if deemed dangerous.
• R v Bristow [2013] EWCA Crim 1540: Demonstrated that the circumstances surrounding a theft can render it dangerous, thereby justifying manslaughter charges.
• R v Willett [2011] EWCA Crim 2710: Addressed issues related to joint enterprise and the imposition of manslaughter for unintended deaths arising from criminal conspiracies.

These precedents collectively support the court's stance that conspiratorial actions, when carrying inherent dangers, can satisfy the criteria for unlawful act manslaughter.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal analysis focused on whether the conspiracy to steal constituted a "dangerous act" under the unlawful act manslaughter framework. It was determined that the premeditated plan to engage in theft, coupled with the agreement to escape via dangerous driving if confronted, inherently carried a risk of causing harm. This aligns with the principle set out in Church, where the act must be such that a reasonable person would recognize the risk of some harm.

Furthermore, the court differentiated between manslaughter by unlawful act and manslaughter by negligence, rejecting the applicability of the latter in this context. The decision underscored that dangerousness in conspiratorial crimes is derived from the collective intent and actions that foreseeably risk human life, even if unintentionally causing death.

In terms of sentencing, the court applied the Sentencing Council's guidelines for unlawful act manslaughter, categorizing the offense under "very high culpability" due to the premeditated dangerous escape plan and the resulting death of a police officer. The court also addressed the procedural aspects of sentencing young offenders, ensuring that reductions for age and immaturity were applied appropriately without undermining the severity of the crime.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the legal framework governing unlawful act manslaughter, particularly within the realm of joint enterprise and conspiratorial actions. By affirming that conspiracies involving dangerous plans can give rise to manslaughter charges, the court provides clarity for future cases where intentional illicit activities inadvertently result in death.

Additionally, the decision upholds the integrity of sentencing guidelines, emphasizing judicial discretion within established ranges and rejecting overt challenges based on perceived leniency when guidelines have been appropriately applied. The correction of disqualification periods for Bowers and Cole also serves as a procedural precedent, ensuring that sentencing orders comply with statutory requirements.

Overall, the judgment strengthens public confidence in the criminal justice system's ability to appropriately categorize and punish complex criminal behaviors that result in tragic outcomes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Unlawful Act Manslaughter

Unlawful act manslaughter occurs when an individual commits an unlawful act that is inherently dangerous, leading to another person's death. Unlike murder, there is no intent to kill. The act must be such that a reasonable person would foresee some risk of harm.

Joint Enterprise

Joint enterprise refers to a legal doctrine where individuals involved in a collective criminal plan can be held liable for crimes committed by their co-conspirators if they foresaw the possible outcomes of the plan. In this case, participating in a dangerous theft conspiracy implicated the offenders in the resultant manslaughter.

Sentencing Guidelines

Sentencing guidelines are standardized frameworks used by judges to determine appropriate punishments for criminal offenses. These guidelines consider factors like the severity of the crime, the offender's culpability, and mitigating or aggravating circumstances to ensure consistency and fairness in sentencing.

Extended Determinate Sentences

An extended determinate sentence is a custodial sentence exceeding a specified duration, designed for offenders deemed to pose a significant risk to public safety. It includes both the custodial term and an extended licence period post-release, ensuring ongoing supervision.

Disqualification from Driving

Disqualification from driving is a legal penalty that prohibits an individual from holding or obtaining a driving license for a specified period. It serves both as punishment and a protective measure to prevent potentially dangerous individuals from operating vehicles.

Conclusion

Long & Ors v. R. serves as a pivotal affirmation of how unlawful act manslaughter is applied within the framework of joint enterprise and conspiracy. The judgment meticulously upholds the Sentencing Council's guidelines, ensuring that sentencing remains both fair and consistent, especially in cases involving young offenders and tragic outcomes like the death of a police officer.

By dismissing the Attorney General's applications for leave to refer the sentences as unduly lenient, the Court of Appeal underscores the judiciary's autonomy in sentencing, provided that statutory guidelines are duly followed and legally justified. The correction of disqualification periods for Bowers and Cole further emphasizes the court's commitment to procedural accuracy.

Ultimately, this judgment reinforces the delicate balance courts must maintain between justice for victims and fair treatment of offenders, solidifying legal precedents that govern future interpretations of manslaughter within conspiratorial contexts.