Steven, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence following convictions in the Crown Court at Bolton. The Appellant, aged 29 at the time, was convicted by a jury on 20 February 2023 of conspiracy to commit robbery and murder. Two days later, the Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 37 years for murder, and 16 years concurrently for conspiracy to commit robbery.

The facts reveal that the Appellant, along with at least one other individual, carried out a robbery and killing targeting a drug dealer in early July. Planning began around 25 June, informed by the deceased's ex-wife. The Appellant participated in preparatory acts including planting a tracker on the deceased’s vehicle and scouting the area. On 2 July, the deceased was attacked by three men, including the Appellant, and subjected to a prolonged and violent assault lasting approximately two hours before dying from multiple injuries.

The victim was found the following morning with extensive injuries and evidence of a violent struggle and clean-up. The cause of death involved multiple sharp and blunt force injuries and asphyxiation. The Appellant had a significant criminal history and was on licence at the time of the offence.

The sentencing judge found the Appellant was central to the conspiracy though not the mastermind, and accepted there was no intention to kill but emphasized the prolonged suffering inflicted. The Appellant’s grounds of appeal challenged the assessment of his role and the judge’s treatment of intention to kill in setting the minimum term.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to adequately consider that the Appellant played a lesser role than the mastermind in the conspiracy.
2. Whether the sentencing judge improperly failed to reflect the absence of intention to kill when determining the minimum term of 37 years.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contended that the sentencing judge did not sufficiently account for his lesser role relative to the mastermind of the conspiracy.
• It was argued that the prolonged suffering should not have been treated as an aggravating factor and then effectively double counted by diminishing the mitigating factor of no intention to kill.
• The Appellant highlighted the application of a tourniquet as evidence negating an intention to kill.
• The Appellant challenged the judge’s finding that the deceased attempted a 999-call, suggesting the evidence did not support this.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent submitted that the sentencing was correct, emphasizing that the judge was entitled to find the Appellant at the centre of the conspiracy.
• The Respondent maintained that the judge’s approach to the absence of intention to kill was consistent with established legal principles.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court emphasized the trial judge’s role as the primary fact-finder, noting that findings of fact would only be disturbed if there was internal inconsistency, conflict with uncontroverted evidence, or irrationality, none of which were present regarding the Appellant’s central role. The court accepted that while the Appellant was not the mastermind, sentencing him as centrally involved was proper.

Regarding the issue of double counting, the court reasoned that the prolonged suffering was a valid aggravating factor. The absence of intention to kill was acknowledged as mitigating, but this mitigation was appropriately tempered by the severity and duration of the victim’s suffering. The judge’s conclusion that the mitigating factor was limited was not surprising given the facts.

The court also addressed the disputed 999-call evidence, concluding it was unnecessary to resolve the issue because the judge’s finding of no intention to kill did not depend on it. Even if the call had been made by one of the assailants, the failure to follow up rendered the call ineffective, leaving the deceased to die.

Overall, the court found the sentence was not arguably manifestly excessive given the horrific nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding it.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

This decision upheld the original sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum term of 37 years. The ruling confirms that a defendant centrally involved in a conspiracy to commit a violent offence may be sentenced accordingly even if not the mastermind. The court also clarifies that mitigating factors such as absence of intention to kill may be limited where prolonged suffering aggravates the offence. No new precedent was established; the decision primarily affirms the trial judge’s factual findings and sentencing discretion.