Palaj & Ors, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

An application was made for leave to refer sentences considered unduly lenient by His Majesty's Solicitor General, as well as an application for leave to appeal against sentence by the Appellant. The Appellant, a 33-year-old man, along with a 36-year-old co-defendant, were convicted of murder, and a 29-year-old co-defendant was convicted of manslaughter following a trial before Judge Saini and a jury at the Crown Court in The City. Sentencing occurred on 21 April 2023, with the two murder convictions receiving life sentences with minimum terms of 20 years less days spent on remand, and the manslaughter conviction receiving a 5-year imprisonment sentence.

The incident involved two criminal groups, referred to as Group A and Group B, engaged in conflict related to the theft of cannabis crops from residential properties in The City. Group A were cannabis cultivators and included the deceased, while Group B, including the offenders, were involved in the theft of cannabis crops. The confrontation escalated into violence on 24 May 2022, resulting in the deceased being stabbed multiple times and dying from his injuries. The first and second offenders armed themselves with knives during the incident to secure the release of the third offender, who had been threatened and detained by Group A.

The trial established that the offenders were part of an organised criminal enterprise involved in cannabis theft, though the judge found that Group B’s activities did not involve violence prior to the incident. The violence was triggered by Group A’s ambush and threats. The judge made detailed factual findings consistent with jury verdicts and considered self-defence claims, concluding that excessive force was used by the offenders, negating a full self-defence justification.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentences imposed on the offenders were unduly lenient, particularly in light of the context of organised criminal activity and the nature of the violence.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in law or fact in his treatment of self-defence and the appropriate starting points for sentencing.
3. Whether leave to appeal against sentence should be granted to the Appellant.

Arguments of the Parties

Solicitor General's Arguments

• The sentences failed to adequately reflect the organised criminal activity context of the offences.
• The terrifying nature of the incident for public witnesses was insufficiently considered in sentencing.
• The judge erred in his treatment of self-defence by ignoring the timeline and permitting excessive force to be effectively excused.

Appellant and Co-defendants' Arguments

• The judge properly considered the criminal activity background and the impact on the public in sentencing remarks.
• Weight given to each sentencing factor was a matter for the judge’s discretion.
• The sentences were already lengthy, and self-defence was correctly reflected in the sentencing.
• The Appellant argued for a further reduction on the basis that knives were only taken due to self-defence concerns, warranting a greater discount from the elevated starting point.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully reviewed the sentencing exercise conducted by the trial judge following a lengthy trial and found the judge’s factual findings to be well-supported, consistent with evidence, and aligned with the jury verdicts. The court emphasized the established principle that appellate courts should respect sentencing judges’ findings unless they are unsupported by evidence or irrational, none of which was argued here.

The court acknowledged the context of organised criminal activity and the conflict between two criminal gangs, but found that the judge had properly accounted for these factors, including the elevated starting point for the murder convictions due to the offenders carrying knives to the scene. The judge’s finding that Group B’s criminal enterprise did not involve violence was upheld as sound and based on evidence.

The court noted the judge’s recognition of the incident’s terrifying effect on the public and accepted that this was appropriately weighed in sentencing. Regarding self-defence, the court found no error in the judge’s approach, which correctly left self-defence to the jury and recognized that excessive force was used, negating a full defence. The court rejected the argument that carrying knives to secure a release was unlawful self-defence, affirming the judge’s findings of fact and legal application.

In relation to the Appellant’s appeal, the court found no justiciable error in the sentencing judge’s assessment and refused leave to appeal. Similarly, the court upheld the manslaughter sentence for the third offender, finding the categorisation of culpability appropriate and the sentence not unduly lenient.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the Solicitor General’s application for leave to refer the sentences as unduly lenient and REFUSED the Appellant’s application for leave to appeal against sentence.

The decision affirms the trial judge’s careful factual findings and sentencing discretion in a complex case involving organised criminal activity and lethal violence. It confirms the principle that appellate courts will not interfere absent clear error and underscores the proper approach to self-defence claims in sentencing. No new precedent was established; the ruling directly affects only the parties by upholding the sentences imposed.