Ambersley & Anor, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellants, referred to as Appellant 1 and Appellant 2, appealed against their sentences following convictions at the Central Criminal Court before Judge Dodd KC after a 23-day trial. On 6 February 2021, the victims, Victim 1 (aged 22) and Victim 2 (aged 16), were stabbed during a sudden and violent group attack on Willesden Lane in Kilburn. The appellants were part of a group of six males, some carrying knives, who attacked the victims. Victim 1 died as a result of the stabbing, while Victim 2 survived but suffered life-threatening injuries and long-term physical and psychological harm.

Following the trial, Appellant 1 and Appellant 2 were convicted of the murder of Victim 1 and wounding Victim 2 with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. They were acquitted of attempted murder of Victim 2. Sentences were imposed on 3 August 2023: both appellants received life imprisonment with minimum terms of 27 years, reduced for time spent on remand, plus concurrent sentences of 12 years for the section 18 offence. A third individual pleaded guilty to manslaughter and unlawful wounding and was sentenced separately. Several other participants in the attack remain unidentified and at large.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred in principle in finding that Appellant 1 intended to kill, as opposed to intending only to cause serious bodily harm.
2. Whether the judge was correct to conclude that the attack was not premeditated.
3. Whether the sentence imposed on Appellant 1 was manifestly excessive, including the adequacy of mitigation given his age and background.
4. Whether the judge erred in sentencing Appellant 2 on the basis that he possessed a knife, given evidential uncertainties.
5. Whether the judge was correct in concluding that Appellant 2 intended to kill Victim 1 despite acquittal on attempted murder of Victim 2.
6. Whether the categorisation of the section 18 offence as category 1A (high culpability and harm) was appropriate for Appellant 2.
7. Whether the sentences imposed on both appellants were manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant 1's Arguments

• The judge wrongly found intention to kill rather than intention to cause serious bodily harm, which should have been treated as a mitigating factor.
• The judge implied premeditation despite lack of evidence supporting this.
• The judge failed to give sufficient weight to Appellant 1's troubled background, including multiple placements in care and family difficulties, and his young age.
• The judge did not clearly explain how the 27-year minimum term was determined.

Respondent's Arguments Regarding Appellant 1

• The judge was entitled to find intention to kill based on the evidence and jury verdicts.
• The judge did not treat the murder as premeditated but as an unprovoked, sudden attack.
• The judge properly considered age and background as mitigating factors and made an appropriate deduction.
• The sentencing remarks were clear and the judge's approach was sound.

Appellant 2's Arguments

• The judge erred in sentencing Appellant 2 on the basis of knife possession where there was no solid evidence.
• The judge wrongly found intention to kill, inconsistent with the jury's acquittal on attempted murder of Victim 2.
• The judge was mistaken in treating Appellant 2 as participant in a sustained attack on Victim 1.
• The section 18 offence was wrongly categorised as category 1 harm; the injury should be regarded as category 2A since the victim made a satisfactory recovery.
• The judge gave insufficient weight to Appellant 2's young age, making the sentence manifestly excessive.

Respondent's Arguments Regarding Appellant 2

• The judge was entitled to find Appellant 2 possessed a knife based on prosecution case and evidence, including victim testimony and CCTV.
• The judge correctly distinguished between intentions towards Victim 1 and Victim 2, concluding intention to kill Victim 1 despite acquittal on attempted murder of Victim 2.
• The injuries to Victim 2 were life-threatening, justifying categorisation of the offence as category 1A.
• The judge properly considered age mitigation and the overall sentence was just and proportionate.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Cairns [2013] 2 Cr App R (S) 73	Deference to trial judge's findings of fact unless no reasonable finder of fact could reach the conclusion.	The court accepted the trial judge’s factual findings regarding intention and participation as reasonable and properly reached.
R v Williams [2019] 2 Cr App R (S) 15	Scope for appellate interference with factual findings in certain circumstances.	The court rejected the submission that the judge’s assessment of Appellant 2’s participation was mistaken and not open on the evidence.
R v O'Bryan [2022] 1 Cr App R (S) 53	Clarification on harm categories under sentencing guidelines for section 18 offences.	The court rejected the argument that life-threatening injuries should be downgraded, affirming category 1 harm applies to truly life-threatening injuries.
R v McGowan [2023] EWCA Crim 247	Further guidance on harm assessment under sentencing guidelines.	Similar to O'Bryan, the court upheld the classification of serious harm as category 1 for life-threatening injuries.
R v Sesay [2024] EWCA Crim 483	Sentencers should calculate and pronounce resulting minimum terms after deductions for time served.	The court noted the sentencing judge’s failure to do arithmetic and accordingly pronounced the minimum terms for the appellants.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court emphasized that the trial judge was best placed to assess the evidence and make factual findings, including regarding intention and participation in the attack. The judge's conclusion that Appellant 1 intended to kill was supported by the nature and extent of the attack, including the sustained stabbing and joint enterprise context, despite the inability to identify who inflicted the fatal wound. The court rejected the notion that the attack was premeditated, noting the judge’s remarks that it was sudden and "out of the blue".

Regarding Appellant 2, the court found no error in the judge's finding that he possessed a knife, based on prosecution evidence and victim testimony. The court accepted the distinction made by the judge between Appellant 2's intentions towards Victim 1 and Victim 2, holding that intention to kill Victim 1 was properly inferred despite acquittal on attempted murder charges relating to Victim 2.

On sentencing, the court recognized the statutory starting point of 25 years for murder involving a knife. The judge increased the minimum term to 28 years to reflect aggravating factors including the serious assault on Victim 2 and previous convictions related to knife possession. The court considered this increase insufficient and suggested a notional starting point closer to 29 or 30 years before mitigation. Both appellants' young ages and, in Appellant 1's case, difficult personal background, were accepted as mitigating factors warranting a one-year reduction, resulting in a 27-year minimum term before deduction for time served.

For the section 18 offences, the judge correctly applied sentencing guidelines, categorizing the offences as category 1A due to high culpability and harm, particularly given the life-threatening nature of Victim 2’s injuries. The court rejected arguments to downgrade this categorization.

The court also addressed the procedural issue that the sentencing judge did not perform the arithmetic to calculate the minimum terms after deducting time spent on remand, which is now considered best practice. The court therefore pronounced the adjusted minimum terms itself.

Holding and Implications

The appeals against sentence by both appellants are DISMISSED. The court upheld the life sentences with minimum terms of 27 years reduced for time spent in custody, resulting in effective minimum terms of 24 years 220 days for Appellant 1 and 24 years 226 days for Appellant 2.

The decision affirms the trial judge’s factual findings and sentencing approach, particularly the application of joint enterprise principles and proper categorization of harm under sentencing guidelines. There is no new precedent set beyond reinforcing established principles regarding appellate deference to trial judges on factual matters and sentencing methodology. The court’s pronouncement of the minimum terms after deduction addresses procedural clarity and aligns with recent guidance.