Parnham, R v

An offender convicted of involuntary manslaughter may receive credit in sentence for a timely pre-trial offer to plead guilty to that offence, even where the prosecution rejected the offer and the case was later fully contested.

Sentence must reflect the absence of an intention to kill or cause really serious bodily harm, but also the full circumstances of the killing. Relevant matters include the ferocity of the attack, the extent of any mitigation, and sentences in genuinely comparable cases. There is no fixed sentencing range: comparison requires attention to the features that explained the sentence in each authority.

The applicant was convicted at Lewes Crown Court of involuntary manslaughter following the death of his wife during a domestic argument. The jury rejected self-defence and did not find an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. He was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment.

Before trial, he had offered to plead guilty to manslaughter, but the prosecution rejected the offer. On his renewed application, the Court of Appeal granted leave and determined the full appeal against sentence. The issues were whether credit should have been allowed for the offer and whether the six-year term was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the six-year sentence and substituted four years’ imprisonment. It granted the appellant liberty to apply because the appeal had proceeded in his absence, although it did not encourage a further application.

2. The sentencing judge had allowed no credit for the earlier offer to plead guilty to manslaughter. Some credit was due. The offer had been made months before trial and was for the offence of which the appellant was ultimately convicted. The prosecution was entitled to reject it, and the later trial was fully contested, but neither matter removed all entitlement to credit.

3. The six-year term was manifestly excessive. In assessing sentence for involuntary manslaughter, the court treated the absence of an intention to kill or cause really serious bodily harm as important, while assessing the whole of the offending. Comparable decisions required careful attention to their particular mitigation. R v Higgins [1996] 1 Cr App R(S) 271 involved substantial mitigating features not present here. In R v Suratan [2002] EWCA Crim 2982, there had been mitigating circumstances before the killing and the Court of Appeal had regarded the sentence as lenient.

4. The deceased had caused some injury, but the appellant suffered no serious injury. His response was an attack of excessive ferocity. The jury’s finding of involuntary manslaughter nevertheless established that his frenzied state meant that he lacked the relevant murderous intent. Taking those matters, the guilty-plea credit, and comparable sentencing decisions together, four years was the proper sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted four years’ imprisonment for the six-year term: [2003] EWCA Crim 416.
• Lewes Crown Court: Convicted the applicant of involuntary manslaughter on 11 January 2002 and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment.