Davies & Ors, R. v

In sentencing violent disorder, the court must reflect both the seriousness of the particular incident and the collective effect of the disorder on the public. Individual participation must be assessed, but public anxiety and distress caused by group violence remain material.

On an appeal against sentence, the court must assess the appropriate sentence at the time of the appeal. It should take account of reliable evidence of intervening progress, enduring remorse and rehabilitation. Such material may justify suspending a custodial term even though immediate custody was appropriate when the offender was sentenced.

Four appellants pleaded guilty in the Crown Court sitting at Worcester to violent disorder arising from alcohol-fuelled violence at a bar. Their accepted bases of plea described differing and limited personal roles, although the disorder as a whole involved serious violence, weapons and injuries to door staff.

Each appellant received 18 months’ imprisonment. They appealed, relying on their guilty pleas, good or effective good character, limited participation, remorse and personal mitigation. The Court of Appeal also received post-sentence information showing sustained remorse, alcohol work, good conduct in prison and genuine employment and family support.

The central issue was whether those matters justified reducing and suspending sentences for conduct for which custody was nevertheless appropriate.

1. The appeals were allowed to a limited extent. The court varied each sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment to nine months’ imprisonment, suspended for 18 months, with 150 hours’ unpaid work.
2. The sentencing judge had been right to regard the offending as serious and to conclude that custody was appropriate. In violent-disorder cases, sentence must reflect the particular incident and the collective effect of the disorder, including the anxiety and distress inflicted on the public. The court endorsed the judge’s reliance on R v Rees [2006] 1 Cr App R(S) for that approach. The accepted bases of plea and the involvement of others were considered, but did not remove the custodial threshold.
3. The Court of Appeal nevertheless had reliable information unavailable to the sentencing judge. The passage of time enabled it to test whether remorse, family support and offers of employment were genuine and enduring. An appellate court must assess the appropriate sentence at the date of the appeal and take intervening progress into account.
4. Here, each appellant had shown continuing remorse and constructive progress. The suspended terms retained sentences of imprisonment and gave appropriate public reassurance about the seriousness of violent disorder, while the unpaid-work requirement supplied a further punitive element.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2008] EWCA Crim 3050, allowed the sentence appeals to a limited extent and varied each sentence to nine months’ imprisonment, suspended for 18 months, with 150 hours’ unpaid work.
• Crown Court sitting at Worcester: On 4 August 2008 the appellants pleaded guilty to violent disorder. On 8 September 2008 each was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment.