REGINA v JAKE LIAM McFARLANE

For sentencing manslaughter by unlawful act, where the act involved an intention to cause harm or recklessness as to whether harm would be caused, the appropriate starting point is ordinarily category C, subject to adjustment. A belief that the offender was defending another cannot, by itself, justify category D, particularly where the response was grossly disproportionate and unjustified. Conversely, category C must not be applied mechanically: the belief may require a substantial downward adjustment. The court should then address aggravating and mitigating features, credit for a guilty plea and totality.

This was an Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter and possession of a Class A drug with intent to supply. He had punched a man whom he believed was threatening a woman; the man fell, suffered fatal head injuries and died. The Crown Court at Peterborough categorised the manslaughter as category D and imposed 24 months’ imprisonment, consecutive to 21 months for the drug offence. The Attorney General argued that the manslaughter should have been categorised as category C and that the sentence was unduly lenient. The central issue was the correct guideline categorisation where the offender believed he was defending another but used grossly disproportionate force.

The court granted leave for the Attorney General’s reference. It held that the manslaughter sentence was unduly lenient, quashed the sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment and substituted 44 months. All other aspects of the sentence remained unchanged.

1. Guideline categorisation. The manslaughter guideline should not be applied mechanically. Where death is caused by an unlawful act involving an intention to cause harm, or recklessness as to whether harm would be caused, sentencing starts in category C, subject to appropriate adjustment.
2. Defence of another. It was wrong to place the case in category D solely because the offender believed that he was defending another person. That approach ignored the grossly disproportionate and wholly unjustified nature of the attack. A substantial adjustment would have been required even if category D had been selected.
3. Adjustment of the category C starting point. The offender’s misguided belief that someone needed defending required an adjustment of about one year from the six-year category C starting point. The aggravating and mitigating features produced a further net upward adjustment of about six months. After credit for the guilty plea, the appropriate sentence was 44 months’ imprisonment.
4. Totality. The court stood back and considered whether a further reduction was required for totality. It concluded that no additional reduction was necessary beyond the reduction already reflected in the 21-month sentence for the drug offence.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave was granted under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The manslaughter sentence was quashed and replaced with 44 months’ imprisonment.
2. Crown Court at Peterborough: The offender was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment for manslaughter and 21 consecutive months for possession of a Class A drug with intent to supply.