Blackshaw, R. v (Rev 1)

Offences committed as part of, intrinsic to, or intended to contribute to widespread public disorder are aggravated by that context. Sentencing must reflect both punishment and deterrence, even where an individual offence would ordinarily attract a lower sentence.

Relevant sentencing guidelines remain the starting point. They are not inflexible and may be departed from where the interests of justice require it. Guidelines framed for ordinary offending may not accommodate the aggravation arising from nationwide disorder.

The offender’s own conduct must nevertheless be assessed. Handling offences closely connected with disorder, but not involving participation in it, may justify a lower deterrent element than burglary or violence intrinsic to the disorder.

Ten adult offenders appealed sentences imposed after the widespread public disorder of August 2011. Their offences included using Facebook to encourage riots, burglary and dishonest handling of goods looted during the disorder.

The appeals came from Crown Courts at Chester, Manchester, Inner London and Wood Green. The central issue was whether the individual sentences were manifestly excessive when the offences were assessed in the context of nationwide rioting, looting, violence and damage.

1. Disposition. The appeals of Blackshaw, Sutcliffe, Halloway, Vanasco, Gillespie-Doyle, Koyuncu and McGrane were dismissed. The appeals of Craven, Beswick and Carter were allowed to reduce their sentences to six, nine and eight months’ imprisonment respectively.
2. Sentencing courts must consider the context in which an offence was committed. Under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 143(1), that context bears directly on culpability and on harm caused, intended or foreseeably caused. Deliberate participation in serious public disorder, or offending that creates or aggravates it, is gravely aggravated. Severe sentences directed to punishment and deterrence were therefore justified.
3. Relevant sentencing guidelines provide the starting point and promote consistency. They do not require inflexible adherence. Under Coroners and Justice Act 2009, section 125(1), a court may depart from them where following them would be contrary to the interests of justice. Guidelines devised for ordinary burglary, handling or violence did not contemplate the nationwide disorder in these appeals, so sentences outside their conventional ranges were inevitable.
4. A Crown Court judge may explain the approach taken in cases before that court, but should not issue or appear to issue sentencing guidelines for other courts. The proper process is for individual sentences to be passed on their facts, with appellate guidance arising through this court’s decisions.
5. The degree of connection to the disorder mattered. Burglary and violence intrinsic to the rioting attracted the full aggravation. The three handling offences arose from looting and were serious, but the offenders had not themselves participated in disorder. That distinction reduced, but did not remove, the deterrent element.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Sentence appeals determined in [2011] EWCA Crim 2312. Seven appeals were dismissed and three were allowed by reducing the sentences.
• Crown Courts. Sentences were imposed at Chester, Manchester, Inner London and Wood Green Crown Courts following guilty pleas or committals for sentence from magistrates’ courts.