Stansfield & Anor, R. v

On an appeal against sentence, the question is whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. A sentencing judge need not refer expressly to every item of mitigation if the sentence shows no error of principle and is within the proper range for the offence.

Where guilty pleas have been vacated and the defendants are convicted after trial, they are not entitled to the usual reduction for a guilty plea. A grave aggravated burglary involving a sustained attack in the victim’s home, weapons and substantial injury justified a deterrent custodial sentence of seven years.

The appellants, brothers, were convicted after trial at Bradford Crown Court of aggravated burglary. They had entered guilty pleas at an earlier stage, but were permitted to vacate them before trial.

At about night-time, they and a third man entered the victim’s caravan, which was his home, and attacked him with baseball bats. The victim suffered multiple injuries, including a broken wrist and wounds requiring stitches. Each appellant received seven years’ imprisonment on 20 May 2004.

They appealed on the grounds that the judge had insufficiently reflected mitigation, provocation and their personal circumstances, and had penalised them for changing their pleas. The central issue was whether the sentences were manifestly excessive.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The court held that seven years’ imprisonment for each appellant was not manifestly excessive for this aggravated burglary.

2. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat the caravan as the victim’s home and to emphasise the need for deterrent sentences when offenders force entry into a person’s home armed with weapons. The offence was horrific: it involved a sustained joint attack with baseball bats, serious physical injury, fear to another occupant, and a serious continuing effect on the victim.

3. The judge had not improperly punished either appellant for having changed his plea. Having been convicted after trial, neither appellant was entitled to a reduction for a guilty plea. The judge had simply recorded that consequence when passing sentence.

4. Nor did the absence of express reference to every asserted mitigating matter reveal an error in sentencing. The court considered the matters advanced on appeal, including the appellants’ personal mitigation, character, prior convictions and grievances concerning another person. Those matters did not make the seven-year terms excessive.

5. The court therefore upheld the sentences imposed by Bradford Crown Court.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): appeals against sentence dismissed: [2005] EWCA Crim 2487.
• Bradford Crown Court: on 20 May 2004, each appellant was convicted after trial of aggravated burglary and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment.