Spencer, R. v

On an application for leave to appeal sentence, the court will not interfere unless the sentence is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. Personal mitigation, including good character, youth, a guilty plea and family caring responsibilities, must be weighed against the seriousness of the offence.

Family hardship will not ordinarily justify reducing or suspending a justified immediate custodial sentence unless the evidence shows consequences of exceptional gravity. A group attack in a public place, particularly on persons who objected to antisocial conduct, may properly attract immediate custody despite substantial personal mitigation.

The applicant, aged 19 and of previous good character, pleaded guilty at Woolwich Crown Court to affray arising from a group assault outside a bus stop. One victim sustained orbital fractures and the other a cut to the chin.

On 11 March 2011, the Crown Court imposed six months’ detention in a young offender institution. The applicant sought leave to appeal sentence. He relied principally on his guilty plea, age, good character and his role as a registered carer for his mother, while also assisting his father and living with his pregnant partner.

The central issue was whether those personal circumstances justified a reduction or suspension of an immediate custodial sentence for the affray.

1. The application for leave to appeal sentence was refused. The six-month sentence of detention in a young offender institution was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.
2. The court accepted that the applicant had substantial mitigation. He was young, of positive previous character, had pleaded guilty and expressed remorse. The pre-sentence report assessed the offending as out of character and the risk of reoffending as low.
3. Those matters did not outweigh the gravity of the offence. The applicant participated in a violent group attack at night in a public place on students who had objected to antisocial behaviour. One victim sustained serious facial injuries. The court described the offence as very serious and stressed that sentence must reflect the offending as well as the offender’s personal circumstances.
4. The applicant’s responsibilities for his mother and support for his father did not warrant mercy in the form of a suspended or shorter sentence. The evidence showed that his mother was not dependent on him continuously and that arrangements could be made for her care. Although imprisonment would adversely affect his family, the court found no basis for treating the consequences as devastating or for departing from a sentence otherwise wholly justified.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): refused the applicant’s application for leave to appeal sentence.
• Crown Court at Woolwich: on 11 March 2011, imposed six months’ detention in a young offender institution following a guilty plea to affray.