Rayner, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a reference under section 36 Criminal Justice Act 1988 by the Solicitor General challenging the sentence passed by Judge Forster at the Crown Court in The City on 27 January 2026. The Defendant pleaded guilty in the magistrates' court on the morning of his summary trial and was committed for sentence.

On 11 June 2025 the Defendant made two emergency calls. During the second call, answered by a call handler, he repeatedly made racially and religiously hostile threats to murder people of Pakistani heritage and of the Islamic faith, repeatedly used extreme racist language, stated he had an axe (struck it against a lamppost during the call), and identified a local business where he said he would find victims. The police (Company B) located the Defendant nearby; he had a screwdriver on him and an axe was later recovered at his home. He was arrested the same day.

The Defendant admitted possession of the items in interview, described heavy alcohol use and mental-health difficulties, and said the incident may have been a "cry for help". He pleaded guilty to (i) having an article with a blade or point in a public place and (ii) threats to kill. On 27 January 2026 Judge Forster sentenced the Defendant to 5 months' imprisonment suspended for 2 years (count 1) and 9 months' imprisonment suspended for 2 years concurrent (count 2), with ancillary requirements including rehabilitation activity, unpaid work and an alcohol treatment requirement.

The Solicitor General sought leave to refer the sentence as unduly lenient. This Court heard submissions and had before it the pre-sentence report, a psychiatric report, a witness statement from the call handler, and probation updates.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence passed by the Crown Court was unduly lenient.
2. Whether the offences were correctly categorised under the relevant sentencing guidelines (in particular: whether the threats to kill were B2 or A2 and whether the bladed-article offence was A2 or A1).
3. Whether the sentencing judge erred in weighing aggravating factors (racial and religious hostility; offending against an emergency worker; prior convictions) and in allowing the sentence to be suspended.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Attorney Bishop on behalf of the Solicitor General)

• The threats to kill should have been categorised as A2 (starting point 2 years) because the offender had a visible weapon and the threats involved references to significant violence.
• The bladed-article offence should have been categorised as A1 (starting point 18 months) given the axe, the public street setting and specific threats to kill persons of Pakistani heritage/Islamic faith.
• The judge failed to give sufficient weight to serious aggravating factors—racial and religious hostility and that the threats were made to an emergency worker—so the overall sentence was unduly lenient and should have been towards the top of the applicable ranges; at minimum a custodial sentence of 2 years 6 months was said to be justified.

Respondent's Arguments (Attorney Norman on behalf of the Defendant)

• The threats count was properly categorised as B2 because the axe was not visible to the call handler (the threats were made by phone) and no A-category factors applied.
• The bladed-article offence was properly categorised as A2; there was no evidence of risk of serious disorder or other category 1 factors.
• The sentencing judge was entitled to suspend the sentence given the Defendant's subsequent steps towards rehabilitation (period of abstinence at Company A, supported accommodation, engagement with services, resumption of medication) and the judge's assessment of mitigation; later breaches do not render the original decision retrospectively unduly lenient.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The panel (Judge Stuart-Smith, Judge Cutts and Judge Lickley) analysed categorisation, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the appropriateness of suspension.

On categorisation:

• The Court rejected the Solicitor General's contention that the weapon was "visible" for guideline purposes in respect of the threats to kill: the threats were made to a call handler over the phone and the axe was not visible to that victim; visibility to others not being directly threatened did not qualify as the guideline "visible weapon" factor.
• The Court explained that the guideline factor "threats with significant violence" requires significant violence accompanying the threats, not merely threats of significant violence; accordingly the threats properly fell in category B2 with a 1-year starting point and range 26 weeks to 2½ years.

On aggravating features:

• The Court identified multiple substantial aggravating factors the sentencing judge had under-weighted or discounted: the Defendant's history of violent and related offending (including against emergency workers); the fact the threats were made to an emergency worker (statutory aggravating factor); and racial and religious hostility (statutory aggravating factor).
• These aggravating features required significant upward adjustment from the starting points for both offences.

On mitigation and credit:

• The principal mitigation was remorse, the early guilty plea and limited evidence of sustained rehabilitation at the time of sentence; psychiatric and PSR material indicated alcohol intoxication and mental-health deterioration were primary drivers but did not substantially reduce culpability.

On sentence calculation:

• The Court concluded the least appropriate sentence in isolation was 21 months for the threats to kill count and 9 months for the bladed-article count.
• Applying the principle of totality to concurrent sentences, the Court held the lowest aggregate custodial sentence reasonably imposed was 24 months.
• The Court considered the imposition guideline and recent compliance information and concluded the offending was so serious that immediate custody (not suspension) was required.

Accordingly the Court found the original sentence unduly lenient.

Holding and Implications

Core ruling: The original sentence was quashed and replaced.

Holding (order imposed): The Court quashed the Crown Court sentence and imposed in its place an immediate custodial sentence of 2 years' imprisonment on the threats to kill count (treated as the lead offence) with 6 months' custody concurrent on the bladed-article count. The sentence is not suspended.

Implications: The direct effect is an immediate custodial term for the Defendant as set out above. The opinion addresses application of sentencing guidelines, aggravating factors (including statutory aggravation for hostility and for offending against an emergency worker), categorisation principles and the principle of totality in assessing aggregate sentence. The judgment does not purport to create new binding precedent beyond its application of existing guidelines to the facts; no broader legal rule beyond the case-specific sentencing conclusions is announced in the opinion.