Kelly & Anor, R. v

A concurrent sentence for false imprisonment may properly aggravate the sentence for manslaughter where the detention enabled the fatal violence. A sentencing judge may use Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as guidance when assessing the seriousness of manslaughter, including the aggravating effect of destroying the victim’s body.

An appellate court will not interfere where the trial judge, who was well placed to assess culpability and relative responsibility, took account of the material mitigation and aggravation. Apparent disparity with a co-defendant’s concurrent sentence does not establish objectionable disparity where that sentence had no practical effect because of a life sentence.

Following a four-week trial at Liverpool Crown Court, Kelly and Colecozy were acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter and false imprisonment arising from the detention, fatal assault and subsequent disposal of Joseph McKeever’s body. Each received 22 years’ imprisonment for manslaughter and a concurrent 12 years for false imprisonment.

The appellants appealed their sentences with leave. They contended that the manslaughter sentences were manifestly excessive, that insufficient weight had been given to their late and subordinate involvement and lack of direct violence, and that Colecozy’s false-imprisonment sentence created objectionable disparity with Grimes’s concurrent sentence.

1. Disposition. The court dismissed both appeals against sentence. The sentences of 22 years’ imprisonment for manslaughter and concurrent 12-year terms for false imprisonment were justified by the many aggravating circumstances.
2. The trial judge had presided over the four-week trial and was in a particularly strong position to assess the seriousness of the offences, the appellants’ respective roles and their responsibility. The court was not persuaded that the judge had failed to give proper weight to the matters advanced in mitigation.
3. The false imprisonment, although attracting a concurrent sentence, was properly relevant to the overall seriousness of the manslaughter. The victim was held for about ten hours, unable to escape the violence which caused his death. The appellants had encouraged the later sustained violence, notwithstanding that they neither inflicted the blows nor intended themselves to cause really serious harm. They also participated in the removal and disposal of the body and attempted to conceal their involvement.
4. The court treated destruction of the body as an aggravating feature. Consistently with R v Appleby [2009] EWCA Crim 2693, a sentencing judge may look to Schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 when assessing the seriousness of manslaughter. Paragraph 10(g) identifies destruction of the body as an aggravating factor in the analogous assessment of minimum terms for murder.
5. There was no objectionable disparity with Grimes’s nine-year sentence for false imprisonment. That term was concurrent with his life sentence and 27-year minimum term, so it did not provide a separate basis for reducing either appellant’s manslaughter sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2019] EWCA Crim 668, dismissed both appeals against sentence.
• Crown Court at Liverpool — Following trial before William Davis J and a jury, the appellants were acquitted of murder and convicted of manslaughter and false imprisonment on 14 February 2018. On 15 February 2018, each was sentenced to 22 years’ imprisonment for manslaughter and a concurrent 12 years for false imprisonment.