Wyatt, R. v

In sentencing for manslaughter where a single blow causes death, the court must assess the seriousness of the violence intended while recognising that its catastrophic consequences may greatly exceed that intended violence. Sentences depend closely on the facts. Gratuitous and wholly unjustified violence, particularly against an innocent person in a public street, is a grave aggravating feature. The offender’s intoxication, aggressive conduct, previous record and offending while on bail may also increase seriousness. Full credit remains due for a guilty plea and genuine mitigation, but it does not prevent a sentence from being increased where the original term is unduly lenient.

The offender pleaded guilty at Teesside Crown Court to manslaughter after he delivered an unprovoked single punch to a stranger in a public street. The victim fell, sustained a serious brain injury and later died. The basis of plea was that the offender intended neither to kill nor to cause grievous bodily harm.

On 2 October 2008 the Recorder of Middlesbrough imposed 18 months’ imprisonment. The Solicitor General sought leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer the sentence as unduly lenient. The central issue was whether that sentence properly reflected the gravity of this single-blow manslaughter.

1. The court granted leave and held that the 18-month sentence was unduly lenient. It doubled the sentence to three years’ imprisonment.

2. The court was bound to sentence on the basis of the accepted manslaughter plea. The offender had intended neither death nor grievous bodily harm. The offence was therefore manslaughter, not murder. That limitation did not diminish the need to assess the full seriousness of the gratuitous violence and its fatal result.

3. Single-blow deaths vary greatly in seriousness. The intended violence will commonly be far less than the catastrophic injury and death which follow. In this case, however, the violence was entirely unprovoked and directed at an innocent man walking home. It occurred in a public street in a residential area. The offender was drunk, had displayed aggression earlier that evening, had previous convictions for disorderly and threatening conduct, and was on bail when he offended.

4. The court gave full credit for the guilty plea, the offender’s conduct after the incident, and the mitigation relied upon. It nevertheless concluded that those matters could not justify the sentence imposed. The factual contrast with R v Furby, where a 12-month sentence had been imposed on appeal, demonstrated why that outcome did not provide a proper comparator. The present case was more comparable to the single-blow manslaughter cases summarised in Attorney General's Reference No 9 of 2005 (R v Uddin) and Attorney General's Reference No 113 of 2006 (R v L).

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Granted leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, held the sentence unduly lenient, and increased it to three years’ imprisonment: [2009] EWCA Crim 88.
• Crown Court at Teesside On 2 October 2008, following a guilty plea to manslaughter, the Recorder of Middlesbrough imposed 18 months’ imprisonment.