REGINA v JON PAUL CHATWOOD

A jury’s finding that an offender intended only some harm does not prevent a sentencing judge from finding that the unlawful attack carried an obvious high risk of death or really serious bodily harm. Intention and obvious risk are distinct inquiries. Where that risk was or ought to have been obvious, the offence may properly fall within category B of the unlawful act manslaughter guideline.

A substantial uplift from the category B starting point may be justified by cumulative aggravating features, including premeditation, a leading role, use of a weapon, risk to others, attempts to destroy evidence and relevant antecedents.

The applicant was acquitted at Preston Crown Court of murder and two further counts, but convicted of manslaughter as an alternative offence. The jury’s route to verdict established that he had sent others to find and attack two drug customers who had stolen drugs, intending that they should suffer some harm but not really serious harm.

The sentencing judge placed the offence in category B under the unlawful act manslaughter guideline and imposed 14 years’ imprisonment. The applicant renewed an application for leave to appeal against sentence. He contended that category B was inconsistent with the jury’s verdict and that the sentence was excessive, particularly because he had not envisaged use of a car as a weapon.

1. The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The applicant had no arguable case that the judge erred in categorising the offence as category B or that the 14-year sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

2. The jury’s answers concerned intention. Their verdict established that the applicant intended an attack causing some harm, but did not establish an intention to cause really serious bodily harm. That finding did not determine the separate sentencing issue of whether the unlawful attack carried a high risk of death or really serious bodily harm which was, or ought to have been, obvious to him.

3. The sentencing judge was entitled to find that the applicant had run that obvious risk. Although he could not have known or contemplated that the car would be used as a weapon, the judge could infer that the applicant did not contemplate that those sent to confront a person with previous violence would do so unarmed. That finding properly placed the offence in category B, with a starting point of 12 years.

4. The increase to 14 years was justified by significant cumulative aggravation. The attack was planned and intended both as punishment and deterrence. It involved a weapon, exposed others to risk, occurred in public, and was followed by an attempt to destroy evidence. The applicant had a leading role and a substantial relevant criminal record. Having reviewed the sentence overall, the court found no basis for appellate intervention.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave to appeal against the 14-year sentence for manslaughter was refused.

• Preston Crown Court: On 22 February 2021, the applicant was acquitted of murder and two further counts but convicted of manslaughter. On 24 February 2021, Openshaw J imposed 14 years’ imprisonment.