Connelly, R. v

A sentencing court must not use draft sentencing guidelines, including consultation drafts. It should use a guideline only once it is definitive. Until then, sentencing must proceed by reference to existing case law and practice.

In sentencing manslaughter caused by reckless arson, particular weight may attach to the death, the vulnerability and inability of the victim to escape, the risk to other residents, and the offender’s failure to help. Voluntary intoxication does not mitigate the offending. Separate offences of gravity committed on different occasions should ordinarily receive separate sentences.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Chelmsford Crown Court to manslaughter, reckless arson as to whether life was endangered, and an earlier domestic burglary. She had started a night-time fire in the flat of an elderly and vulnerable man with whom she lived. He died from inhaling toxic substances. Other residents were endangered and attempts were made to rescue both the deceased and a 96-year-old neighbour.

The Crown Court imposed 12 years’ imprisonment for manslaughter and eight years concurrently for arson, with no separate penalty for burglary. The sentencing judge had used a prototype document for a proposed unlawful act manslaughter guideline. The applicant appealed on the ground that the 12-year sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal allowed. The court substituted a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment for the 12-year sentence imposed for manslaughter. The concurrent eight-year sentence for reckless arson remained. It imposed eight months’ imprisonment for burglary, concurrent with the other sentences.

2. The prototype document used below was not a sentencing guideline. Draft guidelines, including consultation drafts, must not be used by sentencing courts. As R v Boakye [2013] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 2 had made clear, only definitive guidelines may be used. Until a definitive manslaughter guideline came into force, courts had to sentence by existing case law and practice.

3. The original pre-plea figure of 18 years was too high. The offending involved both a death and serious danger to several people in a multi-occupied building. The deceased was elderly, in poor health, unable effectively to save himself, and trapped at night. The applicant left unharmed and did nothing to assist him. Her voluntary drug use did not mitigate the offence.

4. The court treated the applicant’s persistent convictions as relevant but gave them no major weight. Evidence of prior exploitation of the deceased was background material. It showed no mitigating pattern of care or concern, but was not directly relevant to the charged arson and manslaughter.

5. Having considered Attorney General’s Reference No 68 of 2008 (Myrie) [2008] EWCA Crim 3188, the arson-manslaughter authorities, and the increased sentencing focus on the death caused since Attorney General’s References Nos 60, 62 and 63 of 2009 (Appleby) [2010] 2 Cr.App.R (S) 2653, the court held that 14 years was appropriate for manslaughter before plea credit. A consecutive 12-month term was appropriate for burglary before credit. Applying full credit for guilty pleas reduced the aggregate to 10 years.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Allowed the sentence appeal and substituted an overall sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment: [2017] EWCA Crim 1569.
• Chelmsford Crown Court — Following guilty pleas, imposed 12 years’ imprisonment for manslaughter and eight years concurrently for reckless arson, with no separate penalty for burglary.