Summary of Opinion (Anonymised)

Factual and Procedural Background

Judge Jefford delivered this opinion. On 10 January 2025, at the Crown Court at The City, the Appellant (then aged 29) was convicted of manslaughter and acquitted of murder. On 7 March 2025, at the same court, the Appellant was sentenced to an extended sentence under section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020: a custodial term of 14 years and an extended licence period of 4 years (total extended sentence of 18 years).

The Appellant obtained leave from a single judge to appeal the finding of dangerousness and the imposition of an extended sentence. Leave to appeal the 14‑year custodial element was refused by the single judge; the Appellant sought to renew that application before this court.

On the facts, shortly before midnight on 14 November 2023 the Victim (aged 17) drove with a group of men to [Number] Main Street in The City following an earlier dispute involving members of both parties. The group comprised at least fourteen men in five cars. The background included earlier altercations at a nightclub and a market, an assault on Brother 1 on 10 November 2023 (his jacket and car keys taken), and a series of threatening calls and vehicles circling the family home, with limited police response.

When the convoy stopped outside [Number] Main Street, the Appellant ran into the street with Brother 1, Brother 2 and Father. The Appellant had taken a kitchen knife. A violent confrontation lasting minutes occurred, captured on CCTV. The Appellant repeatedly stabbed the Victim 14 times (wounds to back, front and sides), including two wounds that would have been independently fatal (one 13cm wound through the left kidney near the spine; one 10cm wound penetrating beneath the diaphragm into the left lobe of the liver). The Victim was also beaten and stomped on. The Appellant removed the knife to the house and later denied possessing a weapon in interview. The Victim died at the scene.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial judge was correct to make a finding of dangerousness under section 308 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
2. Whether the imposition of an extended sentence under section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020 was appropriate in the circumstances.
3. Whether the Appellant should be permitted to renew the appeal against the custodial element of 14 years (procedural renewal under the Criminal Procedure Rules and the Court of Appeal guide) and, if so, whether that custodial term was manifestly excessive.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The offending was an isolated incident, wholly out of character for the Appellant, committed in extreme and fearful circumstances to protect family members (background including traumatic family history abroad and recent threats).
• The Appellant had good character and mitigation (hard-working family background; exemplary conduct before and in custody) that weighed against a dangerousness finding and an extended sentence.
• The judge was wrong to categorise the offence at the highest category for guideline purposes and to rely on features (such as alleged injuries to Person B) that had not been ventilated before sentence.
• Renewal of the appeal against the custodial term should be permitted; alternatively, the custodial term of 14 years is said to be manifestly excessive.

Crown's Arguments

• The extremity of the offending (use of a dangerous weapon, targeted wounds, persistence and number of stab wounds) demonstrated intent to cause serious harm and a high risk of death, supporting categorisation at the top starting point and the extended sentence.
• The number and nature of wounds indicate sustained aggression rather than self-defence; removal of the knife and lies in interview are aggravating.
• The judge was entitled to prefer the author of the pre-sentence report's qualitative view over a purely actuarial score and to find the Appellant posed a significant risk of serious harm.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court addressed the procedural renewal issue first: the Appellant had not given a notice of renewal in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Rules Part 36.5 and the Guide to Proceedings in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division (paragraph C.4.1), so the renewal had automatically lapsed. Although that failure could have justified declining to hear the renewed application, the court nevertheless heard counsel on the point and refused leave to renew on the merits.

On the custodial sentence the court accepted the trial judge's classification and approach. The judge had identified two category B factors (an intention to cause harm falling short of serious bodily harm and a high risk of death or really serious injury that ought to have been obvious). The judge treated the knife as a dangerous weapon, saw the targeting of parts of the body and the number of wounds as indicative of intent and persistence, and arrived at a starting point of 18 years with a custodial term of 14 years after mitigation. The Court of Appeal concluded that the 14‑year custodial term was not manifestly excessive given the judge's substantial allowance for mitigation.

On dangerousness (ground 2) the judge's reasoning was reviewed in detail. The judge had taken account of the pre‑sentence report but formed his own assessment, accepting the report author's view that the actuarial score understated the risk given the nature of the offending. The judge relied on the Appellant's conduct (picking up a knife, immediate attack, multiple stabbings), the Appellant's maintained belief in a self‑defence justification and lack of full acceptance of responsibility.

The Court of Appeal accepted several points made on behalf of the Appellant: the extreme and unusual circumstances surrounding the Appellant and the family's background (including prior threats and limited police response) merited significant weight; it would have been preferable for the judge to give counsel an opportunity to address an issue (the judge's finding that the Appellant had stabbed Person B three times) before relying on it, although that point was not central. Overall the court concluded that the trial judge had not given sufficient weight to the Appellant's previously exemplary character and the extreme context in which the offending occurred and that interference with the dangerousness finding was warranted despite the usual deference to the trial judge's position.

Holding and Implications

The court reached the following conclusions:

• The court refused leave to renew the appeal against the custodial element and upheld the custodial term of 14 years.
• The court allowed the appeal against the dangerousness finding (ground 2), quashed the finding of dangerousness and quashed the extended sentence imposed in consequence, and substituted a determinate sentence of 14 years' imprisonment.

Implications: the Appellant's dangerousness finding and the extended licence element were removed; the direct effect is that the sentence is a determinate custodial term of 14 years. The opinion does not purport to establish any new legal precedent beyond the application of statutory provisions and the court's assessment of the facts in this case.