Alagbaoso, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, a 20-year-old man with no previous convictions, pleaded guilty to wounding with intent on 25 January 2020 and was subsequently convicted of murder committed on 14 March 2020. The wounding offence involved stabbing a victim in Ashford Town Centre, Kent, during a gang-related dispute between the Appellant's gang, "No Plan B" (NPB), and a rival gang, "K Block". The murder victim was a member of the rival gang. The Appellant was sentenced to detention at Her Majesty's Pleasure with a minimum term of 20 years for the murder, and a concurrent 54-month detention for the wounding offence. Two co-defendants were also convicted of perverting the course of justice.

The appeal challenges the minimum term imposed for murder, arguing the trial judge erred in finding the offence was pre-planned and that the Appellant intended to kill, and that insufficient weight was given to provocation. It also contests the appropriateness of the 54-month sentence for the wounding offence and whether the overall sentence was manifestly excessive.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred in concluding that the murder was pre-planned and that the Appellant had formed an intention to kill.
2. Whether the sentence of 54 months for the wounding with intent offence complied with sentencing guidelines, particularly regarding young offenders.
3. Whether the total minimum term of 20 years was manifestly excessive in light of the principle of totality.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court upheld the trial judge's findings that the murder was premeditated and unprovoked, emphasizing the judge's advantage in assessing the evidence after a lengthy trial. The force and nature of the stabbing, including the breaking of the kitchen knife blade and subsequent chase, supported the conclusion of intent to kill.

Regarding the sentencing for the wounding offence, the judge appropriately categorized the harm as Category 3 (high end of the lowest category) with culpability A due to weapon use. The judge applied relevant guidelines for children and young persons, adjusting the sentence accordingly. The concurrent 54-month sentence reflected a 10% plea discount and was treated as an aggravating factor for the murder sentence.

The court acknowledged difficulty in discerning the precise sentence the judge would have imposed for the murder alone but found no legal error in the approach taken to totality. The judge's method of partially incorporating the wounding sentence into the murder sentence was permissible and not manifestly excessive given the seriousness and separate criminality of each offence.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal on all grounds.

The decision confirms the trial judge's findings of premeditation and intent in the murder offence and validates the concurrent sentencing approach for the wounding offence. The ruling upholds the severity of the sentence imposed, reflecting the gravity of the offences and the separate harms caused. No new legal precedent was established, and the ruling primarily affects the parties by affirming the sentences imposed.