Introduction

The case of Bangash & Anor, R v ([2023] EWCA Crim 1149) represents a significant development in the realm of criminal sentencing, particularly concerning manslaughter convictions arising from organized revenge attacks. This case involves appeals by Makengo and Bangash against their respective sentences handed down by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on October 12, 2023.

Makengo, aged 25 at the time of the judgment, and Bangash, aged 26, were both convicted of manslaughter following the death of Mohammed Usman Mirza, aged 19, in a premeditated revenge attack. The Court of Appeal's decision scrutinizes the sentencing process, focusing on the categorization of culpability and the assessment of dangerousness without sufficient submissions from the Crown or defense.

Summary of the Judgment

The central incident involved a group attack orchestrated by associates of Atiq Rahemi, resulting in the death of Mirza. Both Makengo and Bangash were implicated in the planning, organization, and execution of the attack, although they were not directly involved in the physical assault. Makengo received an extended sentence of 21 years' imprisonment, while Bangash was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 14 years.

The judges in the Court of Appeal questioned the initial sentencing on grounds that the trial judge may have erred in categorizing the offenders as dangerous without adequate input from relevant parties. Furthermore, the appellants contended that their culpability was miscategorized, arguing they should have been classified under a less severe category (Category B) instead of the highest category (Category A).

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal found that while the initial categorization was correct, the judge had overstepped in applying additional aggravating factors, leading to overly harsh sentences. The sentences were subsequently reduced: Bangash’s minimum term was lowered from 14 to 12 years, and Makengo’s extended sentence was adjusted to 18 years with a four-year extended licence period.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key provisions of the Sentencing Act 2020, particularly sections 279 and 322, which govern the imposition of extended and life sentences for offenders deemed to pose significant risks to the public. Additionally, the Court of Appeal considers the Sentencing Council’s Manslaughter Guideline, which categorizes offenses based on culpability, with Category A representing the most severe cases.

No specific previous case law was cited as establishing new precedents; however, the decision underscores the importance of strictly adhering to sentencing guidelines and procedural fairness, especially regarding dangerousness assessments.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal's reasoning focuses on two principal areas of critique:

• Dangerousness Findings: The appellants argued that the trial judge improperly determined their dangerousness without proper submissions or evidence, a process typically requiring input from both prosecution and defense.
• Culpability Categorization: They contended that their involvement warranted a Category B classification, not Category A, suggesting that the initial categorization did not accurately reflect the nuances of their intent and involvement.

Upon review, the Court of Appeal acknowledged the trial judge's comprehensive understanding of the case, given her immersion in the evidence. However, it identified errors in the application of aggravating factors, concluding that certain factors had been double-counted, thereby unjustly inflating the severity of the sentences.

The court maintained that the overarching intent and planning of a highly organized and violent attack justified a high culpability classification. Nonetheless, the excessive elevation of the starting points for sentencing was deemed unwarranted, necessitating adjustments to the original sentences.

Impact

This judgment has several implications for future sentencing in manslaughter cases:

• Procedural Fairness: Emphasizes the necessity for judges to invite and consider submissions concerning dangerousness and other aggravating factors, ensuring a balanced and fair sentencing process.
• Sentencing Guidelines Adherence: Reinforces the importance of strictly following the Sentencing Council’s guidelines, particularly in categorizing offenses and applying aggravating factors without overlap.
• Judicial Discretion: Highlights the extent of judicial discretion in interpreting roles and responsibilities within complex criminal networks, while also underscoring accountability to sentencing standards.

Moreover, the court's decision to reduce the sentences underscores the judiciary's role in correcting potential overreach, promoting proportionality in sentencing, and upholding the principles of justice.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Category A vs. Category B Offenses

The Sentencing Council’s Manslaughter Guideline classifies offenses based on the level of culpability. Category A includes cases with very high culpability, often involving significant planning or extreme recklessness. Category B represents serious cases but with slightly lower levels of culpability than Category A.

Dangerousness in Sentencing

A defendant is considered dangerous if they pose a significant risk of serious harm to the public. This determination can lead to the imposition of a discretionary life sentence or an extended sentence under sections 279 and 322 of the Sentencing Act 2020. It involves assessing factors like the offender’s history, the nature of the offense, and the likelihood of reoffending.

Extended Sentence

An extended sentence, as per section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020, entails a custodial term followed by an extended period of supervision after release. This aims to manage and monitor offenders deemed to pose a continued risk to the public.

Notional Determinate Term

The notional determinate term is a theoretical sentence calculated based on the Sentencing Guidelines, considering both aggravating and mitigating factors without delving into individual circumstances. It serves as a benchmark to guide the actual sentencing.

Conclusion

The Bangash & Anor, R v judgment serves as a pivotal reference point in understanding the balance between judicial discretion and adherence to sentencing guidelines. It underscores the judiciary's responsibility to meticulously assess culpability and the risk posed by offenders while ensuring that sentences remain proportional and just.

This case highlights the necessity for procedural rigor, particularly in dangerousness assessments, and cautions against the over-application of aggravating factors that may lead to disproportionate sentencing. By adjusting the original sentences, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed the principles of fairness and proportionality within the sentencing framework.

Ultimately, this judgment contributes to the evolving landscape of criminal sentencing, emphasizing the judiciary's role in safeguarding both public interest and the rights of the offenders.