- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Poor, R. v
Factual and Procedural Background
On 22 October 2025 at the Crown Court in The City, the Appellant was sentenced by Judge McConaghy to 27 months' detention in a young offender institution for violent disorder contrary to section 2 of the Public Order Act 1986. The Appellant, then aged 18 years and 3 months with no previous convictions, obtained leave to appeal against sentence.
The offending arose on 3 August 2024 in the aftermath of widely publicised stabbings in The City. Rival groups confronted one another in a busy town centre. The disorder involved some 300 people over several hours, with projectiles thrown, damage to property and injuries to police and members of the public. CCTV showed the Appellant as part of a group of about 20–30 males who ran to a car park where they threw rocks and other projectiles; the Appellant was captured throwing multiple rocks, collecting and breaking rocks, later re-joining the confronting group for about five minutes while wearing a face covering.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentence imposed (27 months' detention in a young offender institution, after a 25% reduction for a guilty plea from a category 1B starting point of 3 years) was manifestly excessive.
- Whether the mitigation (youth, lack of previous convictions, difficult family background and references) justified a substantially lower sentence that could have been suspended.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments (Attorney Noble)
- The judge correctly categorised the offending as category 1B but the personal mitigation significantly outweighed the aggravating features.
- Because of the Appellant's youth and immaturity, a materially lower sentence after trial than the 3-year starting point should have been appropriate and, after credit for the plea, a sentence that could be suspended was argued to be proper.
- Attorney Noble also brought to the court's attention, after sentencing, that the Appellant participated in the second part of the incident wearing a face covering.
Crown's Arguments (Attorney for the Crown)
- Prosecuting counsel accepted the categorisation and emphasised the seriousness of the offending within the national context of widespread disorder.
- Counsel initially noted an officer had identified footage showing the Appellant covering his face but conceded she could not identify that footage for the court and subsequently conceded the point in open court during sentencing.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| R v Cush and Others; [2024] EWCA Crim 1382; [2025] 1 Cr App R(S) 33 | Context of widespread disorder increases seriousness; importance of deterrence and looking at the whole picture rather than isolating individual acts. | The court treated Cush as authoritative on the significance of national disorder and deterrence; the judge likely had its principles in mind and the court applied them to justify uplift from the starting point. |
| Fox and Hicks [2005] EWCA Crim 1122 | Principle that, in public disorder, the court must look at the whole picture and not treat individual acts in isolation. | The court relied on this principle when assessing the Appellant's role as part of a collective pursuing a common unlawful purpose. |
| Blackshaw [2011] EWCA Crim 2312 | Context of widespread disorder can make individual offences more serious than similar offences in isolation. | Used to support the proposition that the wider context justified sentences above those appropriate for isolated offending. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court (Judge Popplewell) accepted the sentencing judge's categorisation of the offence as category 1B under the Sentencing Council guideline (starting point three years, range one to four years). The court emphasised the wider national context of violent disturbances following the July 2024 stabbings and applied authoritative authority (notably R v Cush and Others) that in cases of public disorder the offender's contribution to a larger, threatening picture justifies greater weight to deterrence and uplift from guideline starting points.
The Appellant's conduct—travelling as part of a group armed with projectiles, being among the first to throw rocks, and later re-joining the confrontation wearing a face covering—were serious aggravating features warranting uplift towards the top of the category range. The sentencing judge had identified mitigation (youth, lack of previous convictions, difficult family background and a positive reference) and applied a 25% reduction for a guilty plea, producing the 27-month term (recorded correctly as detention in a young offender institution). The appellate court rejected the submission that the mitigation so outweighed aggravation as to make a three-year custodial sentence (after trial) manifestly excessive. The late identification of the Appellant's participation in the second phase of the incident by Attorney Noble was commended but not decisive to the outcome.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED.
The court dismissed the appeal against sentence. The original sentence stands as detention in a young offender institution for 27 months (after a 25% reduction for the guilty plea from a category 1B starting point). The decision reaffirms the application of principles that the national context of widespread public disorder and the offender's participation as part of a larger threatening collective justify uplift and significant emphasis on deterrence; no new legal precedent was established.
Alert