Lawrence, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 28 February 2024, in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook before His Honour Judge Falk, the Appellant was convicted of conspiracy to commit grievous bodily harm contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 and section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. This related to a shooting on the Broadwater Farm Estate, Tottenham on 29 August 2017. The Appellant was acquitted of possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life connected to the same incident. The Appellant was 26 years old at the time of conviction.

On 1 March 2024, the Appellant was sentenced to an extended sentence of 24 years, comprising a custodial term of 19 years and an extension period of 5 years. This sentence was ordered to run concurrently with an existing extended sentence of 18½ years (custodial term of 15½ years and 3 years extended licence) imposed on 17 September 2021 for a revenge shooting at Rigg Approach, Leyton on 28 October 2017 ("the Rigg Approach shooting"). The Appellant's application for leave to appeal that earlier sentence was dismissed.

The Appellant was 19 years old at the time of the Broadwater Farm offence and had a prior record including convictions for possession of a bladed article and drug offences, as well as the extended sentence from 2021.

The Appellant's co-defendant, referred to as Co-Defendant, was convicted of both counts on the indictment and sentenced on 1 March 2024 to an extended sentence of 26½ years (21½ years custodial and 5 years extension), concurrent with an earlier extended sentence of 19 years (16 years custodial and 3 years extension) for the Rigg Approach shooting. Co-Defendant had a substantial criminal history and was 26 at the time of the offences.

The Appellant appealed the sentence imposed on 1 March 2024, contending it was wrong in principle and/or manifestly excessive.

The underlying facts revealed that Co-Defendant and the Appellant conspired to obtain a firearm and shoot a third party. Co-Defendant was the actual shooter at Broadwater Farm, firing multiple shots and injuring the victim. The Appellant was involved in planning and conspiracy but was not found to have participated in the shooting itself. Both defendants had also been involved in a prior violent incident at Rigg Approach involving multiple firearms and injuries to innocent bystanders.

The sentencing judge aggregated the offences from both shootings, applying the principle of totality and imposing concurrent extended sentences. The judge acknowledged differences in culpability between the Appellant and Co-Defendant but the final sentences were relatively close in length.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence imposed on the Appellant on 1 March 2024 was wrong in principle and/or manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to maintain a clear distinction between the Appellant's and Co-Defendant's culpability when aggregating sentences for the two shootings.
3. The appropriate application of the principle of totality in sentencing multiple offences committed by the Appellant.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentence failed to reflect the Appellant's acquittal on the firearm possession charge.
• The sentence was too closely aligned to that of Co-Defendant, despite the Appellant not being the shooter.
• Much of the criminality had already been accounted for in the earlier sentence passed on 17 September 2021 (the Rigg Approach sentence).
• The sentencing judge erred by not properly distinguishing between the Appellant's and Co-Defendant's roles and culpability.
• The Appellant was younger and had a lighter criminal record compared to Co-Defendant.

Court's Observations on Arguments

The court accepted the Appellant’s submission that the sentence did not adequately reflect the distinctions between the parties, particularly given the Appellant's lesser involvement and youth.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the sentencing judge’s approach, noting that the judge correctly applied the principle of totality by aggregating the criminality from both shootings and imposing concurrent extended sentences. The judge identified appropriate starting points for each defendant's culpability based on their roles and the seriousness of the offences, with Co-Defendant receiving a higher determinate sentence for being the actual shooter.

However, the court found that when the judge aggregated the sentences, the clear distinction between the Appellant and Co-Defendant was lost, resulting in a sentence for the Appellant only two years shorter than Co-Defendant’s despite significant differences in role, age, and criminal history. The judge’s sentencing remarks did not explain why Co-Defendant received a more generous downward adjustment for totality, which led to an error in principle.

The court concluded that the Appellant’s extended sentence of 24 years was therefore manifestly excessive and required a further downward adjustment to be just and proportionate.

Holding and Implications

The court allowed the Appellant's appeal against sentence.

The sentence imposed on count 1 was quashed and replaced with an extended sentence of 22½ years in total, comprising a custodial period of 17½ years and an extended licence period of 5 years.

The Appellant will serve two-thirds of the custodial term before parole consideration, followed by licence supervision. Breach of licence conditions or reoffending may result in recall to custody for the remainder of the sentence.

No new precedent was established; the decision directly affects the Appellant’s sentence by correcting an error in the application of sentencing principles to reflect appropriate distinctions between co-defendants.