R v Moeez Bangash & Anor

In manslaughter sentencing, an acquittal of murder does not prevent a finding of very high culpability where the offender intended serious violence and played an intrinsic part in a planned group attack. Knowledge that weapons would be used is not essential to a category A assessment. Dangerousness may be established from the organised nature of the offending, the offender’s role and the risk of further serious harm. A sentencing judge should give the parties an opportunity to address dangerousness, although a failure to do so will not necessarily require intervention where the issue was inherent in the case and the evidence supports the finding. Aggravating features closely connected with the category A assessment must not be double counted.

Following a seven-week trial at the Central Criminal Court, Moeez Bangash and Jonathan Makengo were acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter arising from a planned revenge attack. Bangash received life imprisonment with a minimum term of 14 years. Makengo received an extended sentence of 21 years, comprising 16 years’ custody and a five-year extension period, under the Sentencing Act 2020.

Both appealed by leave. They challenged the findings of very high culpability, dangerousness and the imposition of discretionary life or extended sentences. They also argued that the sentences were manifestly excessive because aggravating features had been counted twice. The central issues were whether the sentencing judge’s factual findings and categorisation were open to her, whether dangerousness had been properly assessed, and whether the sentences involved double counting.

1. Appeals allowed in part. The sentencing judge had heard and evaluated the evidence during the seven-week trial and was uniquely placed to assess each appellant’s role. Her factual findings were rationally open to her and were not inconsistent with the manslaughter verdicts or the jury’s inability to establish knowledge that knives would be used.
2. The offending was properly categorised as category A under the Manslaughter Guideline. It involved extensive planning, stolen vehicles, concealed communications, a group attack, a high risk of death and the remorseless execution of a revenge attack. The fact that each appellant’s intention fell short of really serious harm, and that neither was shown to know knives would be used, did not undermine the assessment of very high culpability.
3. Under section 285 of the Sentencing Act 2020, the judge was entitled to find both appellants dangerous. Their significant and intrinsic roles in an organised and sophisticated attack, together with the circumstances of their participation and the risk of further serious harm, supported the findings. A discretionary life sentence was necessary for Bangash, while an extended sentence was necessary for Makengo.
4. It would have been better for dangerousness to have been ventilated expressly at the sentencing hearing, with submissions invited from both sides. However, the issue was inherent in the case, had been referred to in the prosecution sentencing note, and the evidence and findings provided a sufficient basis for the conclusions reached.
5. The judge had erred by increasing the starting points to the extent she did. The revenge nature of the attack and the group offending were closely connected with the category A assessment and were partly double counted. Other aggravating features, including the public location, the suffering caused and lack of good character, could properly be considered separately, but the increases were manifestly excessive.
6. Bangash’s life sentence was quashed and replaced with life imprisonment with a minimum term of 12 years. Makengo’s extended sentence was quashed and replaced with an 18-year extended sentence comprising 14 years’ custody and a four-year extension period.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Appeals against sentence allowed in part. Bangash’s minimum term was reduced from 14 to 12 years. Makengo’s extended sentence was reduced from 21 to 18 years.
• Central Criminal Court: Following a seven-week trial, both appellants were convicted of manslaughter and sentenced on 14 November 2022.