Mane, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion addresses an application for leave to appeal referred to the Full Court by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals.

On 9 November 2023, in the Crown Court at Isleworth before Judge Johnson, the Appellant pleaded guilty to multiple offences.

On 18 January 2024, in the Crown Court at Isleworth before Recorder Krepski, the Appellant was sentenced as follows:

• Count 1: Wounding with intent contrary to s.18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 – 2 years and 4 months' imprisonment.
• Count 3: Having an offensive weapon contrary to s.1(1) Prevention of Crime Act 1953 – 6 months' imprisonment concurrent.
• Count 4: Dangerous driving contrary to s.2 Road Traffic Act 1988 – no separate penalty imposed.

On 7 October 2023, the Complainant was driving a lorry in heavy traffic when the Appellant aggressively attempted to overtake in his motor vehicle, including driving on the wrong side and mounting the kerb. The Appellant exited his vehicle and approached the Complainant’s cab, where a confrontation ensued involving pushing and shoving. Unbeknownst to the Complainant, the Appellant was carrying a screwdriver which he used to deliver a single blow to the Complainant’s neck causing a laceration. The Complainant required hospital treatment and blood-thinning medication for three months. The Appellant surrendered to custody shortly after the incident.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the overall sentence of 2 years and 4 months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive in the context of the case.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in categorising the offence between culpability A and B of the Sentencing Guidelines rather than within culpability B as agreed by the parties.
3. Whether the exceptional family circumstances warranted suspension of the sentence despite the offence and agreed culpability.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentence was manifestly excessive and should have been suspended given the exceptional circumstances.
• The sentencing judge erred in categorising the offence between culpability A and B instead of within culpability B, leading to a higher starting point and harsher sentence.
• The Appellant’s vital caring role for two severely disabled children constituted exceptional mitigation warranting suspension.
• Reference to R v Petherick was made to support the argument that the family situation was akin to sole carers for young children and should influence sentencing.
• A late ground was raised that the sentence should be suspended regardless of categorisation due to exceptional mitigation.

Respondent's Arguments

• The sentencing judge was entitled to categorise the offence on the borderline between culpability A and B due to the use of a screwdriver as a weapon.
• The screwdriver was sufficiently analogous to a highly dangerous weapon to justify the categorisation and starting point used.
• The offence can be committed with or without weapons, and the judge’s approach did not double count the weapon’s use.
• The exceptional family circumstances, while tragic, did not justify interference with the sentence.
• The judge properly considered mitigation and gave a substantial reduction, including credit for the guilty plea.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court focused on whether the sentencing judge erred in categorising the offence between culpability A and B rather than within culpability B. The court found that the judge was entitled to regard the screwdriver as sufficiently analogous to a highly dangerous weapon, justifying the borderline categorisation. The court rejected the argument that this amounted to double counting, emphasizing that the offence can be committed with or without weapons and that the use of the screwdriver was relevant to culpability. The court also dismissed the distinction drawn between inherently dangerous items and everyday items used in the heat of the moment, noting that the conviction required intent to cause serious harm.

The court accepted the sentencing judge’s assessment as reasonable and within the range of possible outcomes, given the deliberate arming with a weapon and the circumstances of its use. The starting point chosen fell within the agreed culpability range. The court acknowledged the tragic family circumstances and the mitigation presented but found no basis to interfere with the sentence. The judge had carefully considered mitigation, reduced the sentence by a year, and accounted for the impact on the children. The court found no error of principle or manifest excessiveness in the sentencing exercise.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the application for leave to appeal.

The direct effect of this decision is the affirmation of the original sentence imposed on the Appellant. The court did not establish any new precedent but confirmed that sentencing judges have discretion to categorise offences with borderline culpability based on the nature and use of weapons. Exceptional family circumstances, while relevant, do not necessarily justify suspension if the sentencing exercise is properly conducted and the sentence is within a reasonable range.