Chin-Charles v R. (Rev 1)

Sentencing remarks must enable the offender to understand, in ordinary language and general terms, the sentence, its reasons and its effect. They are not appellate judgments. Ordinarily, they should identify the guideline category, starting point and range, material adjustments, plea credit and the conclusion, without rehearsing all evidence, submissions or authorities.

On a sentence appeal, the question is whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. An omission from the remarks rarely supports an inference that a matter was ignored. Where consecutive sentences are appropriate, the aggregate must be just and proportionate. A statutory dangerousness finding may be upheld where the offending shows escalating weapon-related violence and a substantial future risk of serious harm.

Two applications for leave to appeal against sentence were heard together. The court used them to give guidance on the proper length, nature and structure of sentencing remarks.

Chin-Charles had received an extended determinate sentence for causing grievous bodily harm with intent, concurrent sentences for supplying Class A drugs, and a consecutive activated suspended sentence. He challenged the guideline category, the resulting term and the finding of dangerousness.

Cullen had received a total of 27 years’ imprisonment for major conspiracies to supply cocaine and cannabis and to possess and transfer prohibited weapons and ammunition. He accepted the individual sentences and the use of consecutive terms, but contended that the totality reduction was insufficient.

1. The court granted Chin-Charles leave and extended time only to correct the failure to give four days’ qualifying-curfew credit. Apart from that correction, his sentence was upheld. The court refused Cullen’s application for leave.

2. Under Criminal Justice Act 2003 section 174 and rule 25.16(7) of the Criminal Procedure Rules, the first audience for sentencing remarks is the offender. Remarks should therefore be expressed in ordinary language and general terms. They should not be framed as a judgment for possible appellate scrutiny. The judge will ordinarily need only to identify the applicable guideline category, starting point and range, material aggravation and mitigation, plea credit and the resulting sentence.

3. The Court of Appeal does not review sentencing remarks as if conducting public-law review. Its task is to decide whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. A judge is presumed to have considered the material placed before the court. A failure to mention a particular submission in the sentencing remarks will rarely justify the contrary inference.

4. For Chin-Charles, the grievous bodily harm offence lay on the boundary between guideline categories 1 and 2. The sustained knife attack was a factor indicating greater harm, and the applicant accepted higher culpability. The aggravating features, including the weapon, prior weapon offending, breach of the suspended sentence and continuing harm to the victim, meant that the same result followed whichever of those categories was selected. A total loss of liberty of 10 years and six months was not excessive.

5. The dangerousness finding under Criminal Justice Act 2003 section 226A was open to the sentencing judge. The more serious injuries had been avoided by chance, and the applicant’s prior and current weapon offending showed an escalation in seriousness and potential for grave harm.

6. For Cullen, the judge had selected appropriate individual sentences and properly imposed consecutive terms between the drugs and firearms conspiracies. The totality exercise required a sentence that was just and proportionate. A further reduction was not justified merely because the applicant had extended an already serious drugs enterprise into firearms offending.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) In [2019] EWCA Crim 1140, Chin-Charles’s sentence appeal succeeded only to the extent of four days’ qualifying-curfew credit. Cullen’s application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

• Crown Court at Woolwich Chin-Charles was sentenced to a 10-year custodial term with a four-year extension period for causing grievous bodily harm with intent, with concurrent drug sentences and a consecutive six-month activated suspended sentence.

• Crown Court at Liverpool Cullen was sentenced to a total of 27 years’ imprisonment for drugs, firearms and ammunition conspiracies.