Summary of Opinion — Judge May

Factual and Procedural Background

These are joint appeals against sentence brought with limited leave of the single judge. The appellants are a father and son; we refer to them as Appellant (father) and Appellant (son). On 12 September 2025, having pleaded guilty before The Magistrates' Court, they were committed for sentence pursuant to section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020. The charges were:

• Appellant (son): one count of affray contrary to section 3(1) and (7) of the Public Order Act 1986; and one count of cultivating a cannabis plant contrary to section 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
• Appellant (father): one count of affray (as above) and one count of possessing a bladed article contrary to section 139(1) and (6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

On 13 October 2025 at The Crown Court the appellants were sentenced. Appellant (son) received a total of 22 months (20 months for affray, consecutively 2 months for cultivation). Appellant (father) received a total of 20 months (20 months for affray, concurrent 10 months for the bladed article).

The offending occurred on 21 January 2024 on The Street in The City and was captured on CCTV. The footage showed Appellant (son) initiating an altercation with a group including a male described as the Victim. The Victim picked up a metal pole and was struck by Appellant (son), who punched the Victim repeatedly. Appellant (father) later emerged from [Number] Main Street holding and brandishing a meat cleaver. Appellant (son) was seen later with a brick and a long pole and struck out. The Victim suffered deep lacerations to the forehead and a 10cm laceration to the top of the head. Police attendance followed; an Officer forced entry to [Number] Main Street; Appellant (son) arrived with a bleeding forehead wound and was arrested. Officers discovered a grow of around 20 cannabis plants at Appellant (son)'s address and he was further arrested for that.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence for affray imposed on each appellant was manifestly excessive (including whether the judge double-counted aggravating features or failed to give sufficient weight to mitigation).
2. Whether the judge erred in declining to suspend the sentences passed.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• Attorney Gerrity (newly instructed) submitted that the affray sentences were too long. He accepted the judge's categorisation as Category 1A but argued that the judge gave excessive weight to certain aggravating matters, producing an element of double-counting, or alternatively failed to give sufficient weight to mitigation.
• He renewed the application for leave to challenge the judge's decision not to suspend the sentences.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the prosecution's submissions on appeal.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Judge May accepted that both appellants acted in self-defence/defence of another at the start of the incident but found the incident, though not long or sustained, to be nonetheless serious because weapons were used and there was an intention to cause fear of really serious violence. Those features established Category A culpability under the relevant Sentencing Council guideline. The court treated the meat cleaver obtained and brandished by Appellant (father) as an especially dangerous weapon constituting a proper aggravating factor and meriting uplift to the Category 1A starting point; this was not treated as impermissible double-counting given the cleaver's particularly dangerous nature.

The court acknowledged the judge had correctly identified aggravating factors (especially dangerous weapon, injuries to the Victim, daylight location with passers-by) but balanced those against weighty mitigation for Appellant (father): previous good character (no previous convictions at age 61) and full employment. On balance the court concluded that the appropriate sentence after trial for the affray in each case was the Category 1A starting point of 24 months. Applying the one-third reduction for plea, the appropriate sentence for the affray became 16 months for each appellant.

The court agreed that Appellant (son)'s role was primary and persistent and that, despite using less dangerous weapons than the cleaver, his violent and repeated attacks justified parity of sentence for the affray. The court found the cannabis sentence appropriate and the decision to order it consecutively to the affray sentence also appropriate in Appellant (son)'s case.

Although the reduction in sentence might have invited reconsideration of suspension, the court concurred with the judge that immediate custody was required for this type of serious street violence involving weapons and therefore refused the renewed application to suspend.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING:

• The sentences for the offence of affray in each case are quashed and replaced with sentences of 16 months' imprisonment for the affray.
• All other sentences and orders remain the same.
• The total sentence for Appellant (father) is therefore 16 months' imprisonment.
• The total sentence for Appellant (son) is therefore 18 months' imprisonment (16 months for affray plus a consecutive 2 months for the cannabis offence).
• Leave to renew the ground challenging the refusal to suspend is refused.

Implications: The decision directly reduces the custodial component for both appellants as stated above. The opinion does not purport to establish a new precedent beyond application of the Sentencing Council guideline to the facts of this case.