Broady, R. v

A sentence for involuntary manslaughter was not arguably manifestly excessive merely because the offender was elderly, of previous good character, and had encountered aggression from the deceased. Those matters required substantial allowance, but did not outweigh the seriousness of deliberately carrying an open knife for possible use and using it in an excessive response after self-defence had been rejected.

The fatal consequences of carrying a knife for perceived self-protection were a material sentencing consideration.

The applicant, aged 71 and of previous good character, was convicted of manslaughter after stabbing Mr Douglas in the neck during a street confrontation. The Crown accepted that the deceased had initiated the aggression. The applicant and his companion had sought to disengage, but the jury rejected the applicant’s claim of self-defence and acquitted him of murder.

On 11 November 2008, His Honour Judge Gee at Manchester imposed seven years’ imprisonment, treating the offence as involuntary manslaughter. The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal sentence, relying principally on his age, character, and the threatening conduct of the deceased. The issue was whether the sentence was arguably manifestly excessive.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed. The sentence of seven years’ imprisonment was not arguably manifestly excessive.

2. The court accepted that the applicant’s age and positive good character were substantial mitigating features. It also accepted that the deceased was the instigator of the confrontation, that he had behaved aggressively, and that the applicant and his companion had twice attempted to disengage.

3. Those matters did not remove the seriousness of the applicant’s deliberate decision to carry an open knife for possible use. He used it by striking at the deceased’s neck. The jury had rejected self-defence, so the conduct had to be treated as an excessive act, notwithstanding the applicant’s circumstances.

4. The sentencing judge had made a significant allowance for age and had stated that a younger offender would have received a considerably higher sentence. The risks created by carrying a knife, even from a misguided belief that it might be needed in self-defence, were material: a moment of irritation, anger or misjudgment could lead to its use and fatal unintended consequences.

5. Accordingly, neither the applicant’s age and character nor the deceased’s threatening conduct provided an arguable basis for appellate intervention.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave to appeal sentence was dismissed in [2009] EWCA Crim 1812.

• Crown Court at Manchester: Following conviction for manslaughter on 21 October 2008, His Honour Judge Gee imposed seven years’ imprisonment on 11 November 2008.