Cush & Ors v R.

Factual and Procedural Background

In late July and August 2024, a series of violent disturbances occurred across England following a fatal stabbing of three young girls at a dance class in Southport on 29 July 2024. The unrest, fueled by misinformation and far-right sentiment, spread nationwide, targeting mosques and hotels housing asylum seekers, resulting in significant damage and injuries, including to police officers. Many individuals responsible were identified, arrested, and swiftly convicted.

This opinion concerns applications for leave to appeal against sentences imposed on four individuals convicted, after guilty pleas, for participation in serious public disorder incidents at different locations and dates in England. Each defendant was sentenced in Crown Courts shortly after their convictions in Magistrates' Courts, with offences including assault on an emergency worker and violent disorder contrary to the Public Order Act 1986.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentences imposed on the appellants for offences related to serious public disorder were manifestly excessive or otherwise erroneous.
2. Whether sentencing guidelines, including those relating to violent disorder and assault on emergency workers, were correctly applied in each case.
3. Whether custodial sentences imposed on young offenders complied with statutory requirements, particularly regarding the distinction between imprisonment and detention in a Young Offender Institution.
4. Whether mitigating factors, including personal circumstances and the possibility of suspended sentences, were properly considered.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant Ozzie Cush's Arguments

• The judge incorrectly classified the harm caused as category 2 instead of category 3, leading to a manifestly excessive sentence.
• The sentence imposed was approximately four times the upper limit of the guideline range for the category found.
• The judge interrupted the probation officer during oral reporting, allegedly resulting in the officer's recommendations not being considered.

Appellant Paul Williams' Arguments

• The sentence should have been limited to two years and suspended.
• There was alleged double counting of the appellant's active and persistent participation in the disorder.

Appellant Dylan Willis' Arguments

• The sentence was manifestly excessive due to insufficient allowance for mitigation related to his limited role and personal circumstances.

Appellant Aminadab Temesgen's Arguments

• The judge erred in categorising culpability as category A instead of category B.
• The judge failed to obtain a pre-sentence report.
• The sentence should have been suspended.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Caird and others [1970] 54 Cr App R 499	Principle that in public disorder cases the court must consider the whole picture, not just individual acts.	Supported the court's approach to assessing offending in the context of widespread violent disorder.
R v Fox and Hicks [2005] EWCA Crim 1122; [2006] 1 Cr App R (S) 17	Emphasised the importance of considering the larger picture in public disorder sentencing.	Used to underscore that individual conduct is part of a collective unlawful purpose.
R v Blackshaw and others [2011] EWCA Crim 2312; [2012] 1 Cr App R (S) 114	Context of disorder increases seriousness of individual offences and justifies harsher sentences.	Reinforced the need for severe sentences for aggravated crimes committed during mass disorder.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court grounded its analysis in the Sentencing Code, particularly sections 57 and 59, which set out the purposes of sentencing adults and the duty to follow relevant sentencing guidelines. The court acknowledged the need for rapid sentencing to deter further disorder and protect the public.

It applied the Sentencing Council's definitive guidelines for violent disorder and assault on emergency workers, emphasizing that the offence's context—mass violent disorder—heightens culpability and harm beyond the individual acts. The court relied on established case law underscoring the necessity to consider the whole picture in public disorder cases rather than isolating individual conduct.

In assessing culpability and harm, the court considered the scale of violence, the offender's role, and aggravating factors, while cautioning against double counting. The court recognized that serious public disorder justifies sentences aimed at both punishment and deterrence, often resulting in immediate custody.

Regarding each appellant, the court carefully weighed personal mitigation, prior history, and the offender's specific conduct within the broader disorder. For two appellants, the court found no error in the sentences imposed, affirming the need for immediate custody. For the other two, it identified errors in sentencing categorization or failure to consider suspension appropriately, leading to modifications of their sentences.

Holding and Implications

The court reached the following decisions:

• Ozzie Cush: Leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The original custodial sentence was upheld as not manifestly excessive.
• Paul Williams: Leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The sentence of immediate custody was affirmed.
• Dylan Willis: Leave to appeal was granted. The court quashed the immediate custodial sentence of 14 months' detention and substituted a 14-month detention sentence suspended for two years, with a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement of up to 40 days.
• Aminadab Temesgen: Leave to appeal was granted. The court quashed the unlawful sentence of imprisonment and substituted a sentence of 14 months' detention in a Young Offender Institution. All other aspects of the sentence remained unchanged.

The implications of these decisions are primarily confined to the parties involved, correcting sentencing errors and affirming the application of sentencing principles in serious public disorder cases. No new legal precedents were established.