Hall, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 29 September 2025 at The Crown Court, the Appellant (aged 34) was sentenced to 22 months' imprisonment after pleading guilty at trial to violent disorder contrary to s.2 Public Order Act 1986. The violent disorder occurred on 20 November 2022 at The Prison. Eight defendants were convicted for the incident; three, including the Appellant, were recalled prisoners. CCTV recorded events outside a cell occupied by Prisoner A; Prisoner A suffered multiple stab wounds and Prisoner B was assaulted. The footage showed the Appellant attempting to approach the cell, later picking up and throwing a pool ball, and leaving shortly thereafter. The Appellant admitted identification on CCTV and provided a basis of plea denying prior knowledge of the attack, asserting he did not enter the cell, and stating he threw a pool ball in perceived self-defence after being struck by missiles. The Appellant had a history of prior convictions for violent offences. The sentencing judge (Judge Soole) treated the group offending as serious and declined to suspend the custodial sentence. With leave, the Appellant appealed on grounds including manifest excessiveness and error in categorisation and non‑suspension.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in categorising the Appellant's culpability (placing him effectively within culpability category 2A / joint enterprise) rather than category 2B.
2. Whether the sentence of 22 months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.
3. Whether it was wrong in principle to conclude the sentence could not be suspended.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Attorney Miller)

• The Appellant did not know of any planned attack and was not part of a pre‑planned joint enterprise targeting Prisoner A.
• He did not enter the cell and had no weapon before the incident; CCTV supports his limited role and account.
• He only used force after being struck by pool balls and acted in a chaotic situation to protect himself; his conduct was at most culpability category 2B.
• The pool ball did not strike anyone; aggravating factors (prison setting, use of a missile) should be weighed without double counting.
• Personal mitigation (stable accommodation pre‑offence, employment, contact with his child) supported a lower sentence and suspension should have been considered given his limited role and delay to trial.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The Prosecution distinguished the Appellant from principal instigators, accepting a lower culpability than some co‑defendants and submitted the Appellant fell within culpability category B (as conceded at an earlier stage).
• The offending was aggravated by use of a weapon/missiles, commission in a custodial setting, some planning, and relevant previous convictions.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed culpability, harm, aggravating and mitigating features strictly against the Appellant's pleaded basis and the CCTV. The sentencing judge had viewed the CCTV and, while accepting aspects of the Appellant's plea, concluded the overall offending by the group justified placement within category 2A (joint enterprise with targeted planning and weapons made in advance). The judge recognised the Appellant's lesser role by adopting a lower starting point than for other co‑defendants but proceeded in the framework of a category 2A case and refused suspension, considering immediate custody necessary.

On appeal the court accepted the Appellant's lack of prior knowledge, absence of pre‑prepared weapons, and that he had been struck before throwing a pool ball. The court concluded the Appellant's conduct was properly classified within culpability category 2B (participation in an ongoing incident involving serious violence rather than a pre‑planned targeted joint enterprise). The court nevertheless upheld that aggravating features were present: prior violent convictions, the custodial setting, and the throwing of a pool ball (even if in unreasonable self‑defence) added to the danger of the incident. It also allowed mitigation for the Appellant's limited role and personal mitigation. Balancing these factors, the court determined an appropriate sentence before plea credit was 18 months, reduced to 16 months after applying the 10% plea credit and rounding.

The appellate court considered but rejected interference with the judge's decision not to suspend, finding no error of principle: the sentencing judge had applied the correct guideline approach and reasonably concluded the seriousness warranted immediate custody.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The appeal was allowed in part. The custodial sentence imposed on the Appellant was reduced from 22 months to 16 months' imprisonment.

Implications: The court re‑categorised the Appellant's culpability to category 2B for sentencing purposes and adjusted the sentence accordingly. The decision to refuse suspension was upheld; the ruling did not purport to establish new law beyond the application of existing guideline principles to the facts of this case.