Celmins, R v

In a sentence appeal for manslaughter, the question is whether the sentence is manifestly excessive. Proper weight is given to the sentencing judge’s assessment where that judge presided over the trial and was therefore well placed to evaluate the offender’s true criminality and the proper place within the relevant sentencing bracket.

Non-guideline sentencing decisions are fact-sensitive. Comparisons with their facts may provide no useful assistance in determining the proper sentence in another case.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter at Carlisle Crown Court after killing his uncle by applying a headlock during an alcohol-fuelled confrontation. He relied at trial on reasonable self-defence. The jury rejected that defence, apparently because the force used exceeded what was reasonably justified.

The trial judge sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment. The appellant obtained leave to appeal against sentence. His application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused by the single judge and then abandoned. The appeal concerned whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in light of the provocation, his personal circumstances and the circumstances of the killing.

1. Appeal dismissed. The four-year sentence for manslaughter was not manifestly excessive.

2. The court accepted that the case had a tragic background and that the appellant had been subjected to considerable provocation. The jury’s rejection of reasonable self-defence established that the force used in the headlock exceeded what was reasonably justified. That conclusion did not eliminate the relevant provocation for sentencing purposes.

3. The sentencing judge had presided over the five-day trial. He was therefore particularly well placed to assess the appellant’s true criminality and to locate the sentence within the relevant sentencing bracket. The Court of Appeal was satisfied that the judge had the correct bracket in mind.

4. The court treated Morgan [1993] 14 Cr.App.R (S) 734 and Frankcom [2003] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 22 as non-guideline, fact-sensitive sentencing decisions. Comparisons with those cases did not assist the assessment of this sentence.

5. Applying the manifest-excess test, the court upheld the sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against the four-year sentence for manslaughter.

• Carlisle Crown Court: convicted the appellant of manslaughter on 17 October 2008 and sentenced him on 28 November 2008 to four years’ imprisonment, with credit for 147 days spent on remand.