McKennon, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence in a case involving gang-related violence. The Appellant, aged 25, pleaded guilty at the Central Criminal Court on 30 August 2023 to multiple serious offences including conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm with intent, causing grievous bodily harm with intent, arson, and possession of a firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence. The offences arose from a series of organised drive-by shootings during the summer of 2022, involving stolen cars, disguises, firearms, and arson. The Appellant was sentenced on 6 November 2023 to an extended determinate sentence of 22 years, consisting of 18 years' custody and a 4-year extended licence period. Nine other counts were ordered to lie on the file. The appeal challenges the length of the custodial term imposed.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the starting point of 21 years' imprisonment for the lead offence was manifestly excessive and disproportionate to the overall criminality, particularly in light of the principle of totality.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in his assessment of the appropriate sentence for the lead offence and the application of reductions for guilty pleas and totality.
3. Whether personal mitigation was sufficiently taken into account in the sentencing decision.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contended that the notional sentence of 21 years after trial for the lead offence was excessive, exceeding the upper limit of the relevant sentencing category by five years, and thus was unjust and disproportionate.
• Counsel argued that the sentencing judge's reasoning implied that the conspiracies would merit a combined sentence of about 13 years and six months after trial, which should be reduced to 10 years concurrent after plea and totality considerations.
• They further argued that the lead offence should not have exceeded the top of the category range of 16 years, and after reduction for guilty plea, should have resulted in a sentence of about 14 years.
• The Appellant emphasized that his participation in the lead offence did not include prior knowledge that a firearm would be discharged, and submitted that personal mitigation was inadequately considered.
• A letter from the Appellant was submitted to advance further mitigating factors.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Respondent's legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully analysed the sentencing judge's remarks and rejected the Appellant's interpretation of the sentencing approach. It concluded that the judge considered each conspiracy offence separately, each meriting a sentence of 12 years after trial, but did not opine on a combined sentence for those conspiracies alone. The judge's assessment of the lead offence's sentence was also made in isolation, with a top category range of 16 years.

The court found the Appellant's argument flawed in principle, as it involved double counting reductions for totality and ignored other serious offences admitted. The court emphasised that the Appellant pleaded guilty to seven serious offences, each meriting substantial custodial terms, and that imposing consecutive sentences would have resulted in a custodial term exceeding 40 years, which would be disproportionate.

The sentencing judge's approach of selecting a lead count to reflect overall criminality with concurrent sentences on others was deemed appropriate and unchallenged. The five-year uplift beyond the category range for the lead offence was justified to account for the entirety of offending.

The court also rejected the contention that the Appellant lacked awareness of the firearm discharge, finding this inconsistent with the guilty plea. It was satisfied that all personal mitigation had been fully considered. The Appellant's letter did not add weight to mitigation.

Regarding the surcharge order recorded on the Crown Court record, the court found no evidence of its imposition during sentencing and, pursuant to precedent, ordered its removal from the record as the Court of Appeal lacks power to impose it.

Holding and Implications

The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence is REFUSED.

The decision upholds the sentencing judge's approach and custodial term, confirming that the sentence appropriately reflects the overall criminality and personal mitigation. No new precedent was established. The only procedural implication was the correction of the Crown Court record to remove an improperly recorded surcharge order.