Hattherley, R. v

In sentencing for manslaughter arising from a joint enterprise, the court must distinguish between offenders where their respective roles and culpability are substantially different. Equal sentences are appropriate in some joint-enterprise cases, but justice may require an individual assessment of each participant’s part.

Although death is the gravest harm, the sentence must remain proportionate to the offender’s culpability. In single-punch manslaughter and comparable cases where the fatal consequence was not reasonably foreseeable, a sentence must not be inflated by the harm beyond what the offender’s limited wrongdoing justifies.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter at Leicester Crown Court after a trial and received six years’ detention in a young offender institution. Two co-defendants, who had pleaded guilty, each received four years after credit for plea, calculated from a six-year starting point.

The appellant had joined an assault briefly. There was no evidence that he struck the victim, and he had left the incident before another participant delivered the punch that caused the fatal head injury. He appealed against sentence with the leave of the single judge. The central issues were whether his role required a lower sentence than that of the co-defendants and whether six years was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal allowed. The six-year term of detention was quashed and substituted with detention for three years and six months.

2. In joint-enterprise cases, sentencing need not always differentiate between participants. However, where their roles are materially disparate, justice requires detailed consideration of each defendant’s part before sentence is fixed. The judge was plainly wrong to treat the appellant as deserving the same sentence as the co-defendants.

3. The co-defendants initiated and continued the unprovoked assault. One delivered the fatal punch and the other repeatedly struck and kicked the victim. By contrast, the appellant was absent at the outset, joined only briefly, did not strike the victim, and had withdrawn before the fatal blow. His culpability was therefore significantly lower.

4. The court also held that six years was manifestly excessive in any event. In manslaughter, death is necessarily grave, but sentence must reflect the offender’s culpability. Where death follows a single punch or an unforeseen consequence of an unlawful assault, care is required to prevent a disproportionate sentence. The sentencing range identified in R v Furby [2005] EWCA Crim 3147, on a guilty plea basis, confirmed that the upper end was reserved for offenders closely involved in an aggravated assault.

5. The appellant’s limited participation and relatively minor antecedents supported a substantially lower term. The court derived assistance from comparable sentencing decisions, including one involving a participant who did not strike the victim but encouraged a joint enterprise by presence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted detention for three years and six months: [2009] EWCA Crim 1873.
• Leicester Crown Court: The appellant was convicted of manslaughter on 27 October 2008 and, on 21 November 2008, was sentenced to six years’ detention in a young offender institution.