Mampuya, R v

On an appeal against sentence, a total sentence will not be manifestly excessive where the lead-count sentence, including a justified uplift for additional serious offences, properly reflects the overall offending and complies with totality. The appellate court will assess the seriousness of a coordinated knife attack as a whole, including its planning, repeated violence, vulnerability of the victims and the use of weapons. A possible error in categorising concurrent counts under sentencing guidelines will not require intervention where it does not make the total sentence excessive.

The appellants were convicted after a jury trial at Norwich Crown Court of three offences of wounding with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. They had armed themselves with knives, pursued three men and repeatedly stabbed them.

The sentencing judge imposed 18 years’ imprisonment on the lead count and concurrent terms of nine years on each remaining count. With leave of the single judge, both appellants appealed against sentence. They contended that the total was excessive and that the two concurrent counts had wrongly been placed in the greater-harm category.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The total sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment was stiff and towards the top of the appropriate range, but it was not manifestly excessive.

2. The judge was entitled to treat the offence causing the gravest injury as the lead count. The appellants had armed themselves, pursued their victims and repeatedly stabbed three men in a joint attack at night. The use of knives, the planning, the attacks from behind, the vulnerability of the victims and the presence of bystanders were substantial aggravating features.

3. The lead offence was properly assessed as a category 1 offence under the applicable sentencing guideline. Its starting point was 12 years’ custody, with a range of 9 to 16 years after trial.

4. The court doubted whether the two other counts were properly categorised as category 1. Although they involved repeated assaults and higher culpability through knife use, the attacks were not sustained and the actual harm was not the most serious, despite the intended harm. That point did not assist the appellants: the nine-year terms were concurrent and lay at the top of the category 2 range.

5. The sentencing judge, having conducted the trial, was well placed to assess the overall seriousness. A sentence of 14 years was justified for the lead offence alone, and a further four years properly reflected the additional offending while observing totality.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — in [2019] EWCA Crim 619, dismissed both appeals against sentence.

• Crown Court at Norwich — following a jury trial, convicted both appellants of three offences contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861; imposed 18 years’ imprisonment on the lead count and concurrent nine-year terms on the other counts.