Prescott, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns the sentence of custody for life with a minimum term of 17 years (less time on remand) imposed on the Appellant for the murder of the deceased on 25 September 2021. The Appellant was convicted on 16 February 2023 at the Crown Court in The City and sentenced on 14 March 2023 by Judge Greene. At the time of the offence, the Appellant was 19 years old, and at sentencing was 20.

There were two co-accused: Defendant A, who was 17 at the time of the offence and sentenced unlawfully to detention for life with a minimum term of 20 years instead of detention during His Majesty’s Pleasure; and Defendant B, who was 18 and sentenced to custody for life with a minimum term of 18 years. Both were convicted of murder and attempted robbery.

On the evening of 24 September 2021, the Appellant and the co-defendants were in a vehicle with false number plates, having taken illegal substances and intending to commit criminal acts including theft, robbery, and drug dealing. Earlier that night, the co-defendants committed an attempted robbery, which the Appellant was not involved in.

At approximately 1:10 am on 25 September, the group encountered a fight between two men unknown to them. They took one of the men into their vehicle and then sought another individual, mistakenly identifying the deceased as that person. The deceased, who had mental health conditions and was vulnerable, was surrounded and attacked by the Appellant and co-defendants. The deceased was stabbed multiple times with his own knife and suffered fatal injuries.

After the attack, the co-defendants attempted to destroy evidence. The Appellant was arrested and gave a "no comment" interview initially, later providing a statement denying involvement in the murder or attempted robbery, claiming to have been asleep due to drug use.

The Appellant had two prior convictions, including possession of an offensive weapon. The co-defendants had multiple convictions for various offences including robbery, violence, and intimidation.

The trial judge found it difficult to distinguish individual roles from the CCTV evidence and sentenced all three defendants on the basis that they had all played their part in the murder. The judge set the minimum term for the Appellant at 17 years, considering aggravating and mitigating factors.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the minimum term of 17 years imposed on the Appellant was manifestly excessive.
2. Whether insufficient account was taken of the Appellant's character and lesser criminal history compared to co-defendants.
3. Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to distinguish between the roles played by the Appellant and the co-defendants in the murder.
4. Whether the Appellant’s non-involvement in the disposal of evidence should have been treated as a mitigating factor.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The minimum term of 17 years was too close to the 18-year term imposed on Defendant B, despite the Appellant having a lighter conviction record with no violence offences.
• The Appellant was not involved in the attempted robbery or disposal of evidence, unlike co-defendants, and this should have resulted in a lower sentence.
• The judge failed to differentiate between the Appellant’s role and that of the co-defendants in the murder, with the Appellant being effectively a secondary party based on CCTV evidence.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The sentencing judge was entitled to impose the sentence reflecting the prosecution’s trial case and the evidence, including CCTV footage.
• The CCTV footage did not allow identification of individual defendants or timing of the stabbing, indicating all were participants in the fatal violence.
• The Appellant was actively engaged in the violent attack with the necessary intent for murder, whether or not he wielded the knife directly.
• The sentence imposed was appropriate and the court should not engage in micro-analysis of the evidence.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court considered the Appellant's submissions sequentially. It found that the Appellant's prior conviction for possession of an offensive weapon was rightly regarded as an aggravating factor, though the judge properly noted the absence of violent convictions. The court rejected the argument that there should have been a greater disparity between the Appellant's sentence and that of the co-defendants, emphasizing that the judge had made distinctions based on age and culpability where possible.

The court further rejected the contention that the Appellant’s non-involvement in destroying evidence was mitigating, clarifying that it was instead an aggravating factor for the co-defendants. Regarding the Appellant’s role in the murder, the court found the Appellant’s logic flawed in suggesting he was a secondary party. The rejected self-defence claim by Defendant A and the uncertain recollection of Defendant B did not provide a safe foundation for differentiating their roles from the Appellant’s.

The court accepted the judge’s conclusion that the CCTV evidence did not permit reliable distinctions between the defendants’ participation. All three were found to have been present and engaged in the violence with the requisite intent for murder. The court declined the submission that the principal murderer must receive a more severe sentence, noting the judge was entitled to treat the defendants equally given the evidence.

In sum, the court held that the judge had properly analyzed the evidence and that the minimum term of 17 years was not manifestly excessive given the serious aggravating factors outweighing mitigation.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is dismissed.

The court upheld the life sentence with a minimum term of 17 years for the Appellant. This decision directly affects the parties by affirming the sentence imposed at trial. No new legal precedent was established, and the ruling confirms the sentencing judge’s discretion in assessing culpability and evidence when individual roles in a group offence cannot be distinctly separated.