R v Talliq Mwalim

On sentencing an offender aged about 20½, a pre-sentence report may be advisable but is not automatically required. Where the sentencing judge presided over a substantial trial and formed a sound view of the offender, sentence may properly proceed without one. Youth is relevant mitigation, but its weight depends on age, developmental maturity, previous offending and breach of an existing order. A sentence within the applicable guideline range is not rendered excessive by a co-defendant receiving a slightly longer term. Disparity must be assessed in the light of the offenders’ respective circumstances and culpability.

The appellant was convicted at Basildon Crown Court of attempted murder after trial. He had pleaded guilty to grievous bodily harm with intent and possession of an offensive weapon. He received 23 years’ imprisonment for attempted murder, with six months concurrent for possession of the weapon. He appealed against sentence, arguing that insufficient allowance had been made for his age, that the disparity with a co-defendant’s 24-year sentence was unjust, and that a pre-sentence report should have been obtained. The central issues were the relevance of his age and mitigation, the need for a report, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentence of 23 years’ imprisonment was just and proportionate.
2. Pre-sentence report. Although such a report may often be advisable, particularly where a defendant is under 21, it was not necessary in this case. The appellant was 20½ when the offences were committed, was slightly older at trial, and had been tried before the same judge. The judge had therefore formed a sufficiently good view of him to proceed to sentence without a report.
3. Age and mitigation. The offending was placed in Category B2, with a 25-year starting point and a range of 20 to 30 years. The injuries were exceptionally serious and the sentence reflected the totality of the offending. The appellant’s age was relevant, but he had not just turned 18, there was no suggestion of abnormal developmental maturity, and he had a recent conviction for violence and had breached a Community Order. His guilty plea to the alternative offence and written expression of remorse provided mitigation, but his remorse was not complete because he denied attempted murder. The possession of the weapon used in the attack could be treated as part and parcel of the attempted murder, while the breach of the Community Order added a distinct element.
4. Disparity. The co-defendant was older, had a much more extensive criminal record and had shown less remorse. The sentencing judge was plainly aware of those differences. The possibility that the co-defendant might have received a longer sentence did not provide a basis for reducing the appellant’s sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the sentence imposed by HHJ Graham at Basildon Crown Court.