Dunning, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 2 February 2024, in the Crown Court at The City (His Honour Judge Drew KC), the Applicant, then aged 44, was convicted of one count of Assisting an Offender contrary to section 4 of the Criminal Law Act 1967. On 8 March 2024, before the same court and judge, the Applicant was sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment, less 109 qualifying days for a qualifying tagged curfew.

The Applicant’s co-accused Crowley was acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to an extended term of 17 years. Another co-accused, Henriques, was convicted of Assisting an Offender and sentenced to 21 months' imprisonment.

On 12 June 2023, the deceased was fatally stabbed by Crowley outside a hostel where both Crowley and the Applicant (Crowley’s father) lived. Crowley was involved in drug dealing, including to the Applicant, who had a long history of drug addiction. The deceased and a witness, Katie Davies, were local drug users who had interactions with Crowley that day.

After the stabbing, Crowley and Henriques returned to the hostel, disposed of the knife, and attempted to wash Crowley’s hoodie, which was later recovered by police with the deceased’s blood on it. Crowley then visited the Applicant, who gave Crowley his clothes to aid in disguise. The Applicant later attempted to administer first aid to the deceased and gave misleading information to police about the direction the assailant fled.

The Applicant was arrested later that evening. The prosecution argued that the Applicant knew of Crowley’s involvement in the stabbing and deliberately assisted him by providing clothes and misleading police. The Applicant denied knowledge of the stabbing at the time he gave Crowley his clothes, claiming he only learned of the stabbing later and was concerned about Crowley’s erratic behaviour.

The jury found the Applicant guilty of assisting an offender, specifically Crowley, with the issue for the jury being the Applicant’s knowledge and intent regarding the unlawful assault.

The Applicant had a significant criminal history, including a previous custodial sentence for robbery and a recent community order for possession of an offensive weapon. Mitigation included evidence of efforts to overcome mental health and drug addiction problems.

The Applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence following refusal by a single judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge’s summing-up unduly favoured the prosecution and improperly influenced the jury against the Applicant.
2. Whether the sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive given the mitigation and whether the judge erred in not suspending the sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The summing-up by the trial judge was biased in favour of the prosecution and did not adequately balance the defence case.
• The judge’s remarks about the Applicant “risking” seriously damaging the interests of justice improperly coloured the jury’s view.
• The sentence of 2 years was excessive considering the Applicant’s mitigation, including his efforts to overcome addiction and mental health issues.
• The judge failed to expressly apply the relevant sentencing guidelines and did not properly consider suspending the sentence.
• Reference was made to a precedent case (R v Downey) where a lesser sentence was imposed despite worse facts.

Respondent's Arguments

• The summing-up was fair and accurately reflected both prosecution and defence cases.
• The prosecution case that the Applicant created a false trail to protect Crowley was properly presented and supported by evidence.
• The sentence took into account all relevant factors, including the seriousness of the offence and the Applicant’s previous convictions.
• The judge was entitled to impose an immediate custodial sentence given the nature of the offence and the Applicant’s conduct.
• The judge’s failure to expressly reference the Imposition Guideline did not invalidate the sentence as he clearly had it in mind.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully reviewed the trial judge’s summing-up and found no evidence of judicial bias or undue favouring of the prosecution. The judge had fairly presented both the prosecution and defence cases, including reminding the jury of the Applicant’s evidence and explanation when concerns were raised.

The court emphasized that the prosecution case was strong, supported by the Applicant’s suspicious conduct such as providing clothing to the assailant, misleading police about the direction of flight, and attending the scene promptly, suggesting knowledge of the offence. The jury was entitled to reject the Applicant’s account.

Regarding sentencing, the court noted that the judge had considered all relevant mitigation and aggravating factors, including the Applicant’s prior convictions, drug addiction, and the serious nature of the offence. The judge’s starting point was 2 years and 6 months, reduced to 2 years after weighing mitigating factors.

The court acknowledged the judge’s failure to expressly mention the Imposition Guideline but concluded this did not invalidate the sentence, which was within an appropriate range for the offence. The court also found that suspension was not appropriate given the seriousness of the offence and the Applicant’s history.

Ultimately, the court agreed with the single judge that the conviction was not unsafe and the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.

The conviction for assisting an offender was upheld as safe, and the sentence of 2 years' imprisonment was affirmed as appropriate and not manifestly excessive. The decision underscores the court’s approach to offences involving assistance to serious offenders, particularly in the context of obstructing justice and the gravity of associated crimes. No new precedent was established; the ruling primarily confirms the application of established principles to the facts of this case.