Hall, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence following refusal by a single judge. The applicant, aged 40 at the time, was convicted of manslaughter on 22 December 2022 in the Crown Court at Winchester. Subsequently, on 6 January 2023, the applicant pleaded guilty to burglary from a dwelling and was sentenced on the same day by Her Honour Judge Miller KC. The applicant received a 12-year sentence for manslaughter and a consecutive 2-year sentence for burglary. The burglary sentence was below the statutory minimum custodial term due to considerations of totality. The original application for leave to appeal required a short extension of time.

The facts underlying the offences are as follows: On 23 October 2021, the applicant unlawfully killed a woman aged 40. Several days earlier, the applicant committed a burglary in Southampton, entering a flat through a rear window and stealing cash and valuables. The applicant had traveled from Derby, having relapsed into cocaine use after losing employment. DNA and cell site evidence linked him to the burglary. He denied the offences during police interview but admitted being in Southampton to purchase drugs.

After spending about a week in Southampton, the applicant traveled to Bournemouth. On 22 October, he stole £30 worth of Class A drugs from an individual named Clough Dent. The next day, the applicant was seen by a friend of Dent’s and subsequently accelerated his car towards a group including the deceased. The vehicle struck the deceased at approximately 19 mph, causing fatal brain injuries. The applicant fled the scene, falsely claiming to a recovery company that he had hit an animal, but was arrested later that evening.

The sentencing judge noted the applicant’s prior convictions, mostly dated between 1995 and 2013, and considered the case to be culpability B under the unlawful act manslaughter guideline. The judge found an obvious risk of serious harm from the applicant’s actions, characterizing the vehicle as a weapon used to escape. Aggravating factors included previous convictions and post-offence conduct; mitigating factors included remorse and lack of premeditation. The judge balanced these and imposed the starting point sentence of 12 years for manslaughter and a consecutive 2-year sentence for burglary.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in categorizing the offence as culpability category B under the unlawful act manslaughter guideline.
2. Whether the sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to mitigating factors such as remorse, suicide attempt, and the gap between previous offending and current offences.
3. Whether the consecutive sentence for burglary rendered the total sentence manifestly excessive.
4. Whether leave to appeal against sentence should be granted despite the delay requiring a short extension of time.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge erred in classifying the manslaughter as category B culpability; the lack of premeditation should reduce culpability.
• The driving was intended to cause fear rather than harm; alternatively, if category B applied, the offence was less serious and the sentence too high.
• The judge failed to adequately consider mitigating factors including remorse, a suicide attempt during pre-trial detention, and the eight-year gap since prior offending.
• The consecutive sentence for burglary was excessive and contributed to an overall manifestly excessive total sentence.
• There was an element of self-defence or an attempt to escape, which should influence culpability assessment and sentencing.

Respondent's Arguments (as reflected by the court)

• The judge correctly categorized the case as category B due to the obvious risk of death or serious injury from accelerating towards a group of people.
• The sentencing judge was entitled to weigh aggravating and mitigating factors and reasonably concluded they balanced out, justifying the starting point sentence.
• The consecutive sentence for burglary was appropriate given the distinct nature of the offence and the applicant’s prior burglary convictions.
• The overall sentence was not manifestly excessive, and the application for leave to appeal did not present an arguable case.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully reviewed the sentencing judge’s classification of the manslaughter offence as category B culpability under the Sentencing Council Guideline on Unlawful Act Manslaughter. It accepted that the applicant’s act of accelerating towards a group created an obvious risk of death or serious injury, justifying the category B classification despite the absence of premeditation and the applicant’s asserted intent to frighten rather than harm. The court noted that the sentencing judge was best placed to assess the balance of aggravating and mitigating factors, including the applicant's prior convictions, remorse, and conduct after the offence. The judge’s decision to impose the starting point sentence of 12 years was not open to criticism as manifestly excessive. Regarding the consecutive burglary sentence, the court found no error in principle or in the length of sentence given the applicant’s history and the distinct nature of the offence. The court agreed with the single judge’s refusal of leave to appeal, concluding that the application lacked an arguable basis and that the requested extension of time was therefore also refused.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence and also refused the application to extend time for filing the appeal. The decision confirms the sentencing judge’s classification of culpability and the appropriateness of the sentences imposed, including the consecutive term for burglary. No new precedent was established, and the direct effect is that the applicant’s sentences stand as imposed.