James, R. v

A sentencing judge may differentiate between co-offenders where cogent features of their respective conduct and responsibility justify it. An appellate court will not interfere merely because another judge might have imposed a smaller differential.

On an appeal against sentence, the question is whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The assessment takes account of the applicable starting point and range, the seriousness and brutality of the offending, and mitigating features. A sentence below the stated starting point will not be varied where it properly reflects those matters.

The appellant was convicted by a jury at Cardiff Crown Court of two offences under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He had stabbed the complainant and repeatedly kicked and stamped on him during a joint attack with a co-accused. He received concurrent sentences of 11 years’ imprisonment; the co-accused received concurrent sentences of eight years.

The appellant appealed against sentence. He relied on his previous good character and asserted that the three-year difference between his sentence and that of the co-accused was unjustified. The central issues were whether the differential was an unacceptable disparity and whether the 11-year sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentencing judge was entitled to distinguish between the appellant and his co-accused. She had presided at the trial and was best placed to assess their respective contributions to the attack.

2. The distinction rested on cogent features of the appellant’s conduct. He used the knife, repeatedly kicked and stamped on the complainant, continued after the co-accused had walked away, and left the area while seeking to conceal evidence. The co-accused’s involvement in taking and circulating a photograph, and in later boasting, did not require identical sentences.

3. A different judge might have selected a narrower differential, but that did not make the three-year difference manifestly excessive. The appellant had not shown that the sentencing judge’s reasoned assessment should be displaced.

4. The concurrent 11-year sentences were also not manifestly excessive. The stated starting point for an assault of this gravity was 12 years, with a range of nine to 16 years. Although the attack was not premeditated and followed the complainant’s production of a knife, it involved two offenders, a knife, serious injury, and sustained brutality. The judge had reduced the sentence below the starting point to reflect the mitigating features.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): sentence appeal dismissed in [2013] EWCA Crim 1172.
• Crown Court at Cardiff: the appellant was convicted on 4 October 2012 and sentenced to concurrent terms of 11 years’ imprisonment.