Broadhurst, R. v

In sentencing for gross negligence manslaughter, the culpability categories in the applicable guideline must not be applied mechanically. Where the facts fall between the listed high- and low-culpability factors, the court must make a fair overall assessment and may adjust from the medium-category starting point.

It is relevant that the offender’s acts caused or contributed to the victim’s serious injuries and consequent need for medical help. That remains so whether those acts were lawful or unlawful. An offender’s voluntary intoxication may properly aggravate sentence at the second stage, while personal mitigation must also be assessed.

The applicant pleaded guilty to gross negligence manslaughter after the prosecution accepted that plea during his trial for murder and grievous bodily harm with intent. His admitted breach of duty was leaving his partner, who was severely intoxicated and injured, without seeking emergency medical assistance when an obvious risk of death would have been apparent to a reasonable and prudent person.

Julian Knowles J sentenced him to three years and eight months’ imprisonment. The judge placed the offence towards the upper end of category C of the Sentencing Council guideline. The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal, contending that the case belonged in category D and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal was refused. There was no arguable basis for regarding the sentence as manifestly excessive.

2. The sentencing guideline required a fair assessment of overall culpability, not a mechanical matching exercise. The case did not meet category B, but the judge was not required to disregard features which came close to that category and move directly to category D. Category C expressly covers culpability falling between the high and lower factors.

3. The applicant had not acted negligently in the context of other serious criminality, nor had he shown blatant disregard for a very high risk of death. Nonetheless, he had shown blatant disregard for obvious injuries and an obvious need for medical assistance. It was relevant that he had caused or contributed to the serious injuries which created that need. That fact could be considered whether the injuries had been caused lawfully or unlawfully.

4. The court was unpersuaded that the sentencing judge’s application of R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 and R v BM [2019] QB 1 could be challenged. It was unnecessary, however, to decide that legal issue because the relevance of the applicant’s role in causing serious injury did not depend upon it.

5. At the aggravation-and-mitigation stage, the judge was entitled to treat the applicant’s voluntary intoxication by alcohol and cocaine as a serious aggravating factor. He had considered the personal mitigation and was best placed to assess its weight after hearing the evidence at trial.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused in [2019] EWCA Crim 2026.
• Sentencing court: Julian Knowles J imposed three years and eight months’ imprisonment following the applicant’s guilty plea to gross negligence manslaughter.