Haroon, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 17 August 2021, the Plaintiff (then aged 16) and a co-defendant encountered a 61-year-old male victim sitting intoxicated and alone on a pavement in The City. CCTV footage captured the Plaintiff forcefully kicking the victim to the head, causing him to fall and sustain a fatal head injury. The co-defendant later stamped on the victim. Emergency services were called, but the victim died on 21 August 2021 from a subdural haematoma. The Plaintiff was arrested after disclosing to a therapist that he thought he had killed someone, though he later denied this in police interview.

Following a trial at the Crown Court at Isleworth before Judge Johnson and a jury, the Plaintiff was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced on 10 June 2024 to an extended determinate sentence of 14 years, comprising nine years' detention and a five-year extended licence period, pursuant to section 266 of the Sentencing Act 2020. The co-defendant was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

The Plaintiff renewed an application for leave to appeal against sentence after a single judge refused it.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in categorising the offence as Category B (high culpability) rather than Category C (medium culpability).
2. Whether the imposition of an extended sentence was justified.
3. Whether insufficient weight was given to mitigating factors including the Plaintiff's post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), remorse, age and immaturity at the time of the offence, positive steps taken towards rehabilitation, and psychiatric evidence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The offence should have been categorised as Category C, warranting a lower starting point and sentence range.
• The extended sentence was not properly founded.
• The sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors such as PTSD, genuine remorse, youth, immaturity, positive behavioural changes, and psychiatric evidence.

Respondent's Arguments

• The sentencing judge was best placed to assess culpability and appropriately categorised the offence as Category B.
• The extended sentence was justified based on the Plaintiff's dangerousness and risk of serious harm to the public.
• The judge properly considered and weighed all mitigating factors and the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court upheld the sentencing judge's classification of the offence as Category B, emphasising that the judge was best placed to assess culpability after presiding over the trial. The court noted that the offence involved an intentional assault causing death, with a high risk of serious harm, justifying the higher category despite the Plaintiff's youth and immaturity.

Regarding the extended sentence, the court agreed with the judge's finding that the Plaintiff was a dangerous offender. This conclusion was supported by the pre-sentence report, which identified a high risk of serious harm, particularly when the Plaintiff was in the community associating with offending peers. The court acknowledged the Plaintiff's expressed desire to change but noted actuarial assessments indicated a medium risk of violent re-offending and serious harm in prison.

The court found no error in the judge's balancing of mitigating factors, including PTSD, remorse, age, and rehabilitation efforts. The judge was entitled to weigh these factors as he did, especially given the serious nature of the offence and the Plaintiff's history of violence. The reduction in sentence to account for age demonstrated appropriate judicial consideration.

Overall, the court found the grounds of appeal unarguable and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Holding and Implications

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

This decision confirms the sentencing judge's approach to categorising culpability, assessing dangerousness, and weighing mitigating factors in serious violent offences involving young offenders. The ruling directly affects the parties by upholding the extended determinate sentence of 14 years, reinforcing the principle that extended sentences are appropriate where dangerousness and public protection concerns persist. No new legal precedent was established.