Attorney General Reference No 113 of 2006

On an Attorney-General’s reference, a sentence may be increased only if it is unduly lenient: that is, outside the sentencing bracket properly open to the judge, or grossly in error. An appellate court does not intervene merely because it would have selected a higher sentence.

Unintended deaths caused by a single blow do not form a uniform sentencing category. The seriousness depends on the offender’s intention, the gratuitous nature of the violence, the consequences, and all relevant personal mitigation. Comparisons with reported cases must not become a mechanical exercise. A young offender’s demonstrated capacity for reform may materially affect a sentence, while an extended licence may provide necessary public protection.

The Attorney-General obtained leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer an extended sentence imposed on a 15-year-old defendant who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

The defendant had deliberately punched an unconnected stranger at a railway station while showing off to companions. The victim fell, suffered a fatal head injury, and died the next day. The sentencing judge imposed a custodial term of three years and an extended licence period of three years.

The reference raised whether that sentence was unduly lenient, having regard both to the gratuitous violence and to the defendant’s age, severely adverse background, remorse, and substantial progress in custody.

1. Leave was granted, but the court declined to increase the sentence. The relevant question was not whether the court might itself have imposed a longer term. It was whether the sentence lay outside the bracket properly available to the sentencing judge, or was grossly in error.
2. Unintended deaths resulting from a single blow vary greatly in seriousness. The court endorsed the approach in Attorney-General’s Reference No 9 of 2005 (R v Uddin), [2005] 2 Cr App R(S) 105: such cases cannot be treated as a single identical category, and sentencing courts should not decide them by mechanically comparing individual features of reported cases.
3. The defendant’s conduct was deliberate, gratuitous and callous. Although he did not intend serious harm, the fatal consequence was properly relevant to sentence. There was no meaningful mitigation in the immediate events. However, the judge was entitled to give substantial weight to the defendant’s age, damaging upbringing, voluntary admission, remorse, and convincing evidence of maturation and rehabilitation in custody.
4. The proper available range was approximately two-and-a-half to five years. A sentence nearer the upper end could properly have been imposed, but the three-year custodial term was also open to the judge in the exceptional personal circumstances. The extended licence correctly addressed the continuing risk to the public; an extended sentence provided adequate protection.
5. The sentence of three years’ custody and three years’ extended licence was therefore not unduly lenient. The reference was dismissed in substance and the sentence remained undisturbed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On the Attorney-General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court granted leave but declined to interfere with the extended sentence: [2006] EWCA Crim 3292.
• Sentencing court: Following an early guilty plea to manslaughter, it imposed an extended sentence of three years’ custody and three years’ extended licence. The citation is not stated in the judgment.