Thompson & Anor, R v

In sentencing for attempted murder, later-issued sentencing guidelines may provide valuable assistance even where they were not in force when sentence was passed. A revenge attack involving a planned pursuit and an intention to kill may properly be treated as a Level 2 offence, particularly where it causes serious and long-term harm.

Inter-gang rivalry is a serious aggravating feature. A deterrent element may therefore be appropriate. However, where the sentencing judge expressly compares the case with related offenders and their minimum terms are subsequently reduced, an appellate court may make a modest reduction to avoid an understandable perception of unfair disparity.

The applicants were convicted at Sheffield Crown Court before HHJ Keen QC of attempted murder following a revenge attack after a gang-related murder. They repeatedly stabbed Junior Liversidge, causing life-threatening injuries and lasting medical consequences. Thompson was also convicted of wounding Wesley Daswell with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

Each applicant received 22 years’ imprisonment for attempted murder. Thompson received a concurrent five-year sentence for wounding. Their renewed applications for leave to appeal against sentence followed refusal by the single judge.

The applicants contended that the sentences were manifestly excessive and created unjustified disparity with the reduced minimum terms imposed on Hockenhull and Goring for murder. The central issues were the proper guideline level, the aggravating effect of gang-related revenge, and whether comparative fairness required a reduction.

1. Appeals allowed against sentence. The court granted leave and reduced each sentence for attempted murder from 22 years to 20 years’ imprisonment. Thompson’s concurrent five-year sentence for wounding was unaffected.

2. The subsequently published Sentencing Guidelines Council guidance on attempted murder was not in force when sentence was imposed, but it provided valuable assistance. The offence was properly classified as a Level 2 offence. Although the pursuit was not extensively planned, the applicants formed a plan to pursue the victims and intended to kill Liversidge. The grave and continuing physical harm placed the case within the Level 2 range for serious and long-term harm.

3. The attack was a revenge attack arising from inter-gang rivalry. That context was a serious aggravating factor. The sentencing judge was entitled to include a deterrent element in a determinate sentence because gang violence and its associated culture of silence demanded a firm response. The applicants’ youth and Nelson’s earlier efforts to avoid hostility were mitigating, but did not make a severe sentence inappropriate.

4. In the ordinary course, 22 years’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive given the planned retaliatory attempt to kill and the injuries inflicted. The decisive consideration was comparative fairness. The sentencing judge had expressly compared these applicants with Hockenhull and Goring, whose murder minimum terms had later been reduced from 21 to 18 years. Without a corresponding modest reduction, there would be an understandable perception of unfairness. That consideration alone justified reducing each determinate sentence to 20 years.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Renewed applications for leave to appeal against sentence were granted. The appeals were allowed and each sentence for attempted murder was reduced to 20 years’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Sheffield: On 20 March 2009, HHJ Keen QC convicted both applicants of attempted murder and sentenced each to 22 years’ imprisonment. Thompson was also convicted of wounding with intent and received a concurrent five-year sentence.
• Single judge: Permission to appeal against sentence was refused before the renewed applications.