Carbon, R v

Deliberate manslaughter committed by use of a dangerous weapon is within a high range of culpability, even where the offender did not arm himself and retain the weapon for the fatal attack. The sentencing assessment must nevertheless honour the jury’s verdict and cannot proceed as if the offender intended to kill or cause really serious injury.

In assessing undue leniency, the court may give weight to the gravity of the violence, intoxication, lack of remorse, false accounts and an attempt to blame an innocent person. It must also recognise relevant mitigation, including the trial judge’s advantage in hearing the evidence and post-sentence rehabilitation.

The Attorney General sought leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer as unduly lenient a five-year sentence imposed at the Central Criminal Court.

Following trial, Carbon had been acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter after stabbing the deceased in the leg with a large knife. The fatal wound severed the femoral artery and vein. Carbon remained at the scene and offered some assistance, but subsequently lied to police and maintained at trial that another person was responsible.

The central issue was whether the five-year sentence for this manslaughter was unduly lenient and, if so, whether it should be increased.

1. The Attorney General’s reference was allowed. Leave was granted and the sentence of five years’ imprisonment was quashed and replaced with a sentence of eight years’ imprisonment.

2. The court was bound to sentence for manslaughter, not murder. The jury’s verdict meant that the prosecution had not proved an intention to kill or cause really serious bodily harm when the knife was used. The sentence therefore could not be assessed on the footing that the offender had such an intent.

3. This was nevertheless manslaughter by deliberate violence using a dangerous weapon. It fell within a high range of culpability. The offender had initially taken the knife into the room as a threat, but had put it down before the fatal assault. He had not armed himself and kept the weapon for the attack, so the culpability was not at the highest level.

4. The violence was major rather than a minor assault with an unintended fatal consequence. It followed drink and drug use, involved a large knife and caused a deep wound. The offender’s repeated lies and his attempt to blame an innocent person deprived him of mitigation based on remorse. He also had no good-character mitigation or guilty-plea discount.

5. The court recognised the trial judge’s advantage in hearing the evidence, the offender’s known release date and his positive rehabilitative efforts in custody. Those matters did not prevent the conclusion that five years was significantly unduly lenient. Eight years’ imprisonment was the appropriate substituted sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On the Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court held that the five-year sentence was unduly lenient and substituted eight years’ imprisonment ([2009] EWCA Crim 1313).
• Central Criminal Court: Following trial, Carbon was acquitted of murder and convicted of manslaughter. He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment on 23 December 2008.