Attorney General's Reference No 64 of 2004

A sentence for manslaughter involving sustained and forceful violence against a vulnerable and defenceless victim must give proper weight to the gravity of the offence, punishment, deterrence and public concern at the needless loss of life. Personal mitigation, including remorse, a guilty plea and family circumstances, remains material but must not eclipse those considerations.

Where a sentence is unduly lenient, the appellate court must also allow for double jeopardy and relevant rehabilitative progress since the original sentence when fixing the substituted term.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter, on the basis that she lacked intent for murder, shortly before her trial. At Liverpool Crown Court she received two-and-a-half years’ imprisonment.

While drunk, she carried out a sustained assault on a 68-year-old man in his home. She threw objects at him and repeatedly struck his abdomen with a piece of wood. The abdominal injuries were highly likely to have caused his death.

The Solicitor-General referred the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The issue was whether the sentence was unduly lenient and, if so, what substituted sentence should properly reflect both the offence and the offender’s mitigation.

1. Disposition. The court granted leave on the Attorney-General’s reference, held that the sentence was unduly lenient, quashed the sentence of two-and-a-half years’ imprisonment and substituted three-and-a-half years’ imprisonment.

2. The violence was sustained and forceful. It involved a weapon and a victim who was elderly, vulnerable and defenceless. The offender neither sought medical help nor had any reasonable provocation for the attack. Those features required proper weight to be given to the gravity of the offence, punishment and public concern at the needless loss of life.

3. The court treated Attorney-General’s References Nos 19, 20 and 21 of 2001 [2002] 1 Cr App R(S) 136 as supporting the need for deterrent sentences where death results. In the particular circumstances, even after allowing for the guilty plea and personal mitigation, the appropriate sentence at first instance would have been about four-and-a-half years’ imprisonment.

4. On resentencing, the court had to recognise double jeopardy because the offender was being sentenced for a second time. It also took account of her progress in prison and the investigation arising from her family circumstances. Those considerations reduced the substituted sentence, but did not justify allowing the original judge’s emphasis on mitigation to outweigh the offence’s seriousness.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On an Attorney-General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court held the sentence unduly lenient, quashed it and imposed three-and-a-half years’ imprisonment.
• Liverpool Crown Court: Morland J sentenced the offender to two-and-a-half years’ imprisonment for manslaughter on 23 April 2004.