Kamara, R v (Rev 1)

For manslaughter sentencing, an offender who participates in or encourages group violence while knowing that another participant is carrying a knife may be assessed as highly culpable, even where the offender’s own possession of a knife and direct infliction of injury are unproved. The relevant consideration is the obvious risk of death or serious injury created by the unlawful act. Serious public disorder and multiple victims aggravate the offending. Youth and the absence of previous convictions remain mitigating factors, but do not prevent a substantial custodial sentence where the overall sentence is justified.

Following a jury trial at the Crown Court at Liverpool, Daniel Kamara was convicted of manslaughter and unlawful wounding. He was acquitted of murder, wounding with intent and possessing an article with a blade or point. The Recorder sentenced him to 11 years’ imprisonment for manslaughter and a concurrent two-year term for unlawful wounding.

Kamara renewed his application for leave to appeal against sentence after refusal by a single judge. He argued that the case was unusual because the jury had not been sure that he possessed a knife or directly caused either victim’s injuries, and because the incident was rapid and unpremeditated. The central issue was whether those matters made the sentence excessive in light of his role in starting the disorder, his knowledge that others were armed, the serious public disorder and the two victims.

Renewed application for leave to appeal refused. Mr Justice Jeremy Baker delivered the judgment of the court.

1. The jury’s verdict established that the applicant might not have possessed a knife and might not have intended anyone to suffer serious harm. It also established that others in his group were armed with knives and that he knew this.
2. Applying the definitive guideline for manslaughter, the court upheld the Recorder’s categorisation of the case as category B. Knowledge that another participant had a knife, combined with participation in an unlawful act which clearly and obviously carried a high risk of death or serious injury, constituted a high-culpability factor. The assessment did not depend on proof that the applicant personally carried the knife or inflicted the injuries.
3. The applicant’s role in initiating and encouraging the disorder meant that he bore substantial responsibility. The offending was aggravated by serious public disorder, group intimidation and attack, and the presence of two victims, one of whom died and the other was wounded.
4. The rapid and unpremeditated nature of the incident, the applicant’s age and his lack of previous convictions provided mitigation. Nevertheless, the court was satisfied that the 11-year sentence was entirely justified. There were no arguable grounds of appeal, and the renewed application for leave was refused.

• Crown Court at Liverpool: Following trial before the Recorder of Liverpool and a jury, Daniel Kamara was convicted of manslaughter and unlawful wounding and sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment for manslaughter, with a concurrent two-year sentence for unlawful wounding.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): A single judge refused leave to appeal against sentence. The renewed application was refused by the court in [2020] EWCA Crim 1191 .