Rowley, R. v

For unlawful act manslaughter, high culpability may be established where the unlawful act involved an intention to cause harm falling just short of grievous bodily harm, or carried a high risk of death or grievous bodily harm that was or ought to have been obvious. A court may assess the offender’s whole course of aggressive conduct leading to a punch. The absence of a visible mark, or uncertainty whether the fatal injury followed the punch or the fall, does not prevent category B classification. A guilty plea does not attract maximum credit where the offender maintains self-defence and accepts unlawfulness only after further evidence. The position may differ where causation alone is disputed.

Following guilty pleas, the Crown Court at Warwick sentenced the applicant to nine years’ detention for unlawful act manslaughter, together with a concurrent sentence for dangerous driving. The applicant had punched a man in the head after deliberately provocative motorbike riding and threats of violence; the man fell, suffered fatal injury and died the following day.

The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal against sentence. He challenged the category B culpability assessment, the weight given to aggravating and mitigating factors, the judge’s reference to other sentencing decisions, and the 25% reduction allowed for his guilty plea.

1. Outcome. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed. The sentence was neither arguably excessive nor wrong in principle.
2. Culpability. The judge was entitled to classify the unlawful act manslaughter as category B. The applicant had engaged in a deliberately provocative and aggressive course of conduct, threatened violence, adopted a boxing stance and punched the victim in the head. It ought to have been obvious that the act carried a high risk of death or grievous bodily harm. The conduct was also properly characterised as intended to cause harm falling just short of grievous bodily harm. The fact that the punch left no mark was immaterial. The medical evidence that alcohol augmented the concussive injury, and that the fatal injury might have resulted from the fall, did not remove the foreseeable risk.
3. Mitigation and authorities. The sentencing judge had carefully considered the applicant’s age and family circumstances. There was no proper basis for criticism of her decision not to reduce the sentence below the category B starting point. Her references to R v Coyle [2020] EWCA Crim 484 and R v Taiwo [2020] EWCA Crim 902 were examples of one-punch manslaughter cases treated as category B. They did not show that she had been unduly influenced, since she had applied the guideline and considered the facts of the present case.
4. Guilty plea. A 25% reduction was appropriate. The applicant had maintained in interview and before the Magistrates’ Court that he acted in lawful self-defence, and accepted unlawfulness only after service of the medical evidence. Full one-third credit would have been more arguable if causation had been the only issue. It was not the position here.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed on 30 April 2021.
• Crown Court at Warwick: On 21 September 2020, the applicant was sentenced to nine years’ detention for manslaughter, with concurrent sentences for dangerous driving and summary road traffic offences. The sentence was reconsidered under section 155 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, but was not varied.