R v Francesco Raji & Anor.

Sentencing of a secondary party is fact-specific. A sentencing judge may impose the same sentence as for a principal where the offender’s role, intention and participation justify that result. Turning 18 is not a cliff edge, but age and maturity remain relevant. In unlawful act manslaughter, factors may be used to identify culpability and later balanced as aggravating features where they perform different functions. Double counting is impermissible where the applicable starting point already includes the factor, as with murder starting points under Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020.

Following a trial in the Crown Court at Manchester, Francesco Raji was convicted of murder and violent disorder and sentenced to custody for life with a minimum term of 21 years. Mohammed Al-Jaf was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter and violent disorder and received an extended sentence of 19 years, comprising 16 years’ custody and three years on licence.

Raji challenged the assessment of his role as a secondary party and the allowance made for his age. Al-Jaf challenged the finding that he was dangerous, the culpability category applied to the manslaughter, the increase from 12 to 16 years, and alleged double counting and disparity. The central issues were whether the sentencing judge had erred in assessing culpability, age, dangerousness or aggravating factors.

1. Raji’s appeal: The assessment of culpability between primary and secondary parties is fact-specific. The sentencing judge was entitled to impose the same sentence because Raji was motivated by revenge, had recruited Defendant A, had instructed others to travel to Moston and had been the first to attack in the fatal assault. The judge therefore had compelling reasons not to distinguish between the primary and secondary parties. Turning 18 was not a cliff edge for sentencing. The judge had carefully considered Raji’s age, maturity and testimonials, and there was no basis for concluding that the age discount was impermissibly low or that the sentence was manifestly excessive.
2. Al-Jaf’s appeal: The trial judge was best placed to assess dangerousness because he had heard the evidence, including Al-Jaf’s evidence. The finding was supported by his previous knife conviction, gang affiliation and substantial use of violence. There was no proper basis for appellate interference.
3. Under the unlawful act manslaughter guideline, category B culpability applies where death is caused during an unlawful act involving an intention to cause harm falling just short of grievous bodily harm. The judge was entitled to find that category applied, having regard to Al-Jaf’s three blows with a metal pole and the use of knives by other participants.
4. The factors used to infer Al-Jaf’s intention performed a different function from the statutory and other aggravating factors later balanced against mitigation. There was therefore no impermissible double counting. The murder starting points under Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020 already included certain aggravating features, but the unlawful act manslaughter guideline operated differently. The increase from 12 to 16 years was not manifestly excessive and involved no error of approach.
5. Both appeals against sentence were dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 29 November 2022, both appeals against sentence were dismissed: [2022] EWCA Crim 1594.
2. Crown Court at Manchester — Following trial, Raji was convicted of murder and violent disorder and sentenced to custody for life with a 21-year minimum term. Al-Jaf was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter and violent disorder and sentenced to an extended term of 19 years.