Thomas Cashman v R

When setting a minimum term for a mandatory life sentence, the court must assess the seriousness of the offence together with any associated offences and apply the statutory framework to the offending as a whole. For murder, the applicable starting point and non-exhaustive aggravating features must be considered, while common features must not be double counted. Comparative sentences are generally invidious and unhelpful where the statutory assessment is fact-specific. The age at which an offender may be considered for release does not, without more, establish an error in the sentence or make old age on release a mitigating factor.

Following his conviction at the Crown Court sitting at Manchester, Thomas Cashman was sentenced by Mrs Justice Yip to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 42 years, less 182 days spent on remand. He renewed his application for leave to appeal against sentence after a single judge refused leave.

He argued that the uplift from the statutory starting point was excessive, having regard to the planning involved and his limited history of violence. He also argued that the prospect of being in his seventies before release could be considered was a mitigating circumstance. The central issues were whether the sentencing judge had properly applied the statutory framework and totality principle, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

1. Under section 322 of the Sentencing Act 2020, where a life sentence is imposed for an offence fixed by law and a minimum term is set, the court must take into account the seriousness of the combination of that offence and any associated offences. The sentencing judge correctly considered the attempted murder, the serious wounding and the fatal shooting alongside the murder.

2. Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020 provided the applicable framework. The whole-life starting point for the murder of a child involving substantial planning or premeditation did not apply because the planning was directed at the intended adult victim, not the child. The 30-year starting point for murder involving a firearm was appropriate. The judge then properly considered the non-exhaustive aggravating features and other relevant factors.

3. The relevant aggravating features included substantial planning, the use of two firearms, the relentless pursuit of the intended victim, firing into a family home and the resulting harm to three people. The judge avoided double counting while ensuring that the total sentence reflected the full seriousness of the offending. The 12-year uplift was not excessive or manifestly excessive.

4. Comparisons with other sentencing decisions were likely to be invidious and unhelpful. The statutory principles were sufficient, and each case depended on their application to its particular facts. The approach stated in R v Erskine [2009] EWCA 1425 was apposite.

5. R v Reeves [2023] EWCA Crim 384 did not support the proposition that old age on release was, by itself, a mitigating factor. The applicant’s prospective age at release was a consequence of the seriousness of the offending, not an error in the sentencing approach. There were no mitigating features or remorse, and the sentence was entirely merited.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 15 November 2023, the court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence following refusal by a single judge.
2. Crown Court sitting at Manchester: After conviction on five counts, Mrs Justice Yip sentenced the applicant on 3 April 2023 to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 42 years, less 182 days spent on remand. The other sentences were concurrent.