Hussain, R. v

A sentencing court must sentence an offender consistently with an accepted basis of plea. It errs if its sentencing remarks attribute knowledge, intention or participation which that basis excludes.

For conspiracy to commit violent disorder, culpability includes the shared intention to use or threaten unlawful violence as a group. However, an offender whose participation began only after discovering the true nature of the enterprise, and whose role was limited to support and encouragement, may require a materially lower sentence than more active participants.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Preston to conspiracy to commit violent disorder and was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment.

His accepted written basis of plea stated that he travelled to Village Car Sales believing there would be no more than a fair fight between two men. He first saw weapons after others left the vehicle there. He accepted that he then chose to remain with the group, but did not actively use or threaten violence.

On appeal, he contended that the sentencing judge had not given sufficient effect to that basis of plea, particularly when comparing his role with those of his co-accused.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentencing judge made a material error by sentencing the appellant on a factual basis inconsistent with his accepted basis of plea.

2. The judge had been entitled to regard the violent disorder as serious group offending. Each defendant admitted a shared intention to use or threaten unlawful violence in circumstances likely to cause fear for personal safety. The Court also accepted that distinctions between certain co-accused could properly be made.

3. However, the judge stated that all defendants knew the purpose of the visit to Village Car Sales and were fully bound to the enterprise there. He also stated that all knew what they were doing and why. Those findings contradicted the accepted basis of plea. The appellant had pleaded on the basis that he initially expected only a fair fight, did not see weapons until the others left the vehicle, and joined the conspiracy only then.

4. The accepted basis also implicitly confined his later role to lending support and encouragement, rather than actively participating in violence or threats of violence. Due weight to those limits required a shorter sentence than that appropriate for the more culpable defendants.

5. The Court quashed the sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment and substituted a sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted 24 months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Preston: The appellant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit violent disorder and was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment on 2 July 2018.