Attorney General Reference No 16 of 2014

In single-punch manslaughter, sentence must reflect both the offender’s culpability and the catastrophic but unintended consequence of death. Culpability depends on matters including the deliberateness and force of the blow, the intended injury, the victim’s vulnerability and any aggravating circumstances. A sentence is not unduly lenient merely because a higher sentence was available. Where the sentencing judge has properly weighed the relevant factors and applied current appellate guidance, a sentence within the reasonably available range should not be disturbed.

The offender pleaded guilty at Salisbury Crown Court to manslaughter after delivering an unprovoked, forceful punch to a man who fell into the road, sustained a fatal head injury and died the following day. The punch followed a racist remark made by the deceased to another man. The offender had been on bail and was serving the operational period of a suspended sentence.

He received four years’ imprisonment for manslaughter, with consecutive three-month terms for handling stolen goods and offending during the suspended sentence’s operational period. The Attorney General referred the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, contending that it was unduly lenient.

1. The court refused leave and dismissed the Attorney General’s reference. The four-year sentence for manslaughter was not unduly lenient. It fell within the range reasonably available to the sentencing judge.

2. The court followed Attorney General's Reference No 60 of 2009, Appleby and others [2010] 2 Cr App R (S) 46. In single-punch manslaughter, sentencing requires attention both to the offender’s conduct and intention and to the grave consequence of death. The nature and force of the blow are important to culpability. A relatively modest blow producing death through unusual circumstances differs from serious violence causing a victim to fall helplessly.

3. The offender deliberately delivered a full-force blow to a defenceless person. He intended significant injury, although not really serious harm. His boxing training, the public setting, offending while on bail and during a suspended sentence’s operational period increased culpability. The deceased’s words supplied only limited provocation and did not materially reduce it.

4. After a trial, a sentence of about six to seven years would have been appropriate. The offender’s early guilty plea properly attracted one-third credit, reducing the appropriate sentence to about four years or slightly more. The sentencing judge had correctly applied the post-Appleby approach and the later sentencing decisions.

5. The court added that any wider alteration to this sentencing approach would require consideration alongside other forms of manslaughter to which the Appleby approach had been applied. Such broader review could appropriately be undertaken by the Sentencing Council.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, refused leave and dismissed the Attorney General’s reference: [2014] EWCA Crim 956.
• Salisbury Crown Court The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter and received four years’ imprisonment, with two consecutive three-month sentences for separate offences.