Green, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, aged 42, was sentenced on 2 May 2023 at the Crown Court at Canterbury to eight years' imprisonment for manslaughter following a guilty plea entered approximately two months earlier. The offence arose from an altercation on 6 October 2022 in the street in Folkestone, where the Appellant punched the deceased, a 49-year-old man, with such force that the victim was rendered unconscious, fell backwards, and struck his head on the road, sustaining fatal injuries. The victim died three days later in hospital without regaining consciousness.

The incident occurred outside a food bank where several people had gathered. The deceased made a flippant comment about the clothing of a companion of a young man present. The young man punched the deceased, followed by the Appellant delivering a powerful single punch to the face. Despite the severity of the victim’s injuries, no ambulance was called, and the Appellant and others attempted to conceal the true cause of the injuries by suggesting the victim had tripped and fallen. The Appellant initially denied assaulting the victim and gave a false account to the police.

The Appellant was charged initially with wounding with intent and affray related to a separate incident at the same location. Following the victim’s death, the manslaughter charge was added. The Appellant pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the basis of a single punch causing the fatal injuries. At trial, the Appellant was acquitted of affray, while the co-defendant was acquitted of manslaughter but convicted of assault. The sentencing judge had presided over the related trial, thus having detailed knowledge of the facts and culpability.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in categorising the offence under the Sentencing Council guideline, specifically whether the offence should be classified as Category B (high culpability) or Category C (medium culpability).
2. Whether the judge failed to adequately account for the fact that the offence involved a single punch and the Appellant’s personal mitigation when determining the sentence.
3. Whether the judge gave insufficient credit for the Appellant’s guilty plea, particularly regarding the extent of credit allowed.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge was wrong to categorise the offence as Category B high culpability because the Appellant did not intend to cause harm falling just short of grievous bodily harm, nor was the unlawful act obviously carrying a high risk of grievous bodily harm.
• Even if Category B was appropriate, the sentence should have been reduced below the starting point due to it being a single punch.
• The Appellant should have received full one-third credit for the guilty plea as it was entered at the first available opportunity in the Crown Court.
• The judge failed to give sufficient credit for the identified mitigation, including struggles with addiction and homelessness and genuine remorse.

Respondent's Arguments

• The judge was entitled to find Category B high culpability, and this finding is consistent with the judge’s remarks on dangerousness.
• The appropriate credit for the guilty plea was 25%, not the full one-third, due to the Appellant’s failure to unequivocally accept responsibility at the earliest stage.
• Reference was made to the Better Case Management form at the magistrates' court, which indicated the Appellant did not admit causing serious harm at that time.
• Guidance from the case R v Plaku supports limiting credit to 25% where there is no unequivocal early admission of guilt.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully considered the evidence and submissions. It concluded that the sentencing judge was correct to categorise the offence as Category B high culpability under the Sentencing Council guideline. This was based on the force of the single punch, which caused fractures and knocked the victim unconscious before he fell, creating a high risk of grievous bodily harm which the Appellant ought to have been aware of, even if he did not subjectively consider the risk.

The court rejected the Appellant’s argument that the judge’s remarks on dangerousness were inconsistent with the Category B finding, explaining that the judge’s view that the Appellant did not think about the risk did not negate the objective obviousness of the risk.

Regarding credit for the guilty plea, the court found the judge’s failure to specify the level of credit regrettable but was satisfied that 25% credit was appropriate. The Appellant did not unequivocally accept responsibility at the earliest stage, as evidenced by his initial denials and the cautious wording in the Better Case Management form. Full credit requires an unequivocal early admission, which was absent here.

In balancing aggravating and mitigating factors, the court noted the Appellant’s prior violent convictions, the serious nature of the offence, and limited mitigation. The judge’s sentence, when worked back to before credit for plea, was below the guideline starting point, reflecting a proper balancing exercise. The court found the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Holding and Implications

The appeal against sentence is DISMISSED.

The court affirmed the sentencing judge’s classification of the offence as Category B high culpability and the appropriateness of a 25% credit for the guilty plea. The sentence of eight years’ imprisonment stands, representing a balanced and proportionate response to the offence and the Appellant’s circumstances. No new precedent was established; the decision confirms the application of existing guidelines and principles to cases involving serious injury caused by a single punch.