Castano-Coloque, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 9 February 2024, the Appellant pleaded guilty to murder at the Crown Court at Croydon. On 22 February 2024, His Honour Judge Gower sentenced the Appellant to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 25½ years, less time spent on remand. Additionally, the Appellant received a concurrent two-year sentence for possession of a bladed article, an associated offence to which he also pleaded guilty. The Appellant now appeals against the sentence with leave granted by a single judge.

The facts reveal that the Appellant had been in a relationship with a woman, referred to as MT, who he believed was pregnant with his child. The relationship had ended, but the Appellant wished to continue it. On 28 February 2023, MT was out with a man named Mr Malik. After receiving messages and pictures of MT with Mr Malik, the Appellant set out from his grandmother’s house on a bicycle to find them. He boarded a bus shortly after MT and Mr Malik had done so, concealed a knife, and attacked Mr Malik repeatedly despite MT’s attempts to intervene. The Appellant then fled the bus, discarding his coat and the knife.

Mr Malik received first aid at the scene and was taken to a hospital where he suffered a traumatic brain injury and eventually died on 21 March 2023. The Appellant was arrested on 3 March 2023 and gave no comment during police interview.

The Appellant was 21 years old at sentencing, with a criminal record including prior convictions for possession of offensive weapons as a minor. The sentencing judge had psychiatric reports from both defence and prosecution experts, CCTV footage of the incident, and Victim Personal Statements from friends of Mr Malik. The judge identified several aggravating and mitigating features before determining the sentence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in aggravating the starting point for the minimum term beyond the statutory baseline.
2. Whether the sentencing judge failed properly to reflect the mitigation advanced on behalf of the Appellant.
3. Whether the sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to identified mitigating factors.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge should not have aggravated the already elevated statutory starting point or should not have elevated it to the extent he did.
• The judge failed to properly reflect the mitigation presented by the defence.
• The judge gave insufficient weight to the mitigating factors identified by the defence, including the Appellant’s mental health and youth.

Respondent's Arguments

• The judge correctly considered all relevant factors and followed the appropriate sentencing guidance.
• The aggravating factors outweighed mitigation, justifying the sentence imposed.
• The sentence, although robust, was not manifestly excessive.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Benson [2017] EWCA Crim 120	Consideration of aggravating factors in knife crimes occurring in public places.	The court distinguished the facts of the instant case from Benson, rejecting the appellant’s reliance on it and finding no double counting of aggravating factors.
R v Clarke [2018] EWCA Crim 185	Recognition that maturity is a flexible concept relevant to sentencing young offenders.	The court accepted that youth was a relevant mitigating factor and noted the sentencing judge had taken this into account despite the appellant being over 18.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began with the statutory starting point of a 25-year minimum term for murder involving a knife. It upheld the judge’s identification of specific aggravating factors justifying an increase above this baseline: the premeditated nature of the attack, the public and confined location on a bus with potential risk to bystanders, the Appellant’s previous convictions (including for knife possession), and the attempt to conceal evidence by discarding the knife and jacket.

On mitigation, the court acknowledged the Appellant’s youth, difficult upbringing, personality disorder, remorse, and lack of intent to kill (only serious bodily harm intended). The court rejected the argument that the judge conflated mental health issues with childhood adversity, finding both were properly considered. It also found the judge reasonably addressed the triggering effect of the photographs sent by MT but noted the Appellant was fully in control at the time of the offence, limiting mitigating weight.

The court considered but dismissed the application of the Sentencing Council’s guideline on offenders with mental disorders due to absence of a sufficient causal connection between the mental impairment and the offending. Similarly, although youth and maturity were relevant, the judge had properly accounted for these factors in sentencing.

Despite agreeing with the judge’s approach, the court found the notional minimum term of 27 years before credit for plea was manifestly excessive, either due to excessive uplift for aggravation or insufficient mitigation. The court substituted a minimum term of 24 years (less remand time), reflecting a balanced assessment of aggravating and mitigating factors and the 5% credit for the guilty plea.

Holding and Implications

The appeal against sentence is ALLOWED IN PART. The court quashed the original minimum term of 27 years before credit and substituted a minimum term of 24 years, less 355 days spent on remand. All other aspects of the sentence remain unchanged.

The direct effect is a reduction in the minimum term of imprisonment imposed on the Appellant. The decision does not establish new legal precedent but confirms the appropriate application of sentencing principles regarding aggravating and mitigating factors, mental health considerations, and youth in the context of knife-related murder offences.