R v Dominic Gillett

On an appeal against sentence, the court will not interfere where the sentencing judge has applied the relevant guideline, considered the basis of plea and mitigation, and imposed a sentence that is not manifestly excessive. A judge may reject a factual qualification in a written basis of plea where CCTV provides the evidential answer; a Newton hearing is unnecessary when the issue turns entirely on the footage. Repeated violence, persistence, encouragement of others and escalation may justify an increased sentence, even where the offender acted alone and used no highly dangerous weapon. Sentence comparisons are fact-specific. Unfair disparity requires a public perception that something has gone wrong in the administration of justice. A recent, similar conviction may properly aggravate sentence.

The applicant pleaded guilty on re-arraignment at the Crown Court at Bristol to riot, contrary to section 1(1) of the Public Order Act 1986. An arson charge was discontinued with a not guilty verdict entered under section 17 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. A violent disorder plea was vacated and treated as an alternative. The applicant was sentenced to four years and eight months’ imprisonment.

After leave was refused by a single judge, he renewed his application for leave to appeal against sentence. He alleged errors concerning culpability and his basis of plea, disparity with other offenders, personal mitigation, and the relevance of a recent conviction. The central issue was whether any ground was reasonably arguable or the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court, in a judgment given by Mrs Justice Hill, refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence.

1. Culpability and basis of plea. The sentencing judge accepted the written basis of plea except for the assertion that the applicant had not encouraged others attacking the police station. CCTV showed repeated acts of violence and encouragement, including attacks on police vehicles and the police station, and throwing a wheelie bin towards a police officer. Acting alone did not prevent his conduct from encouraging others. The judge was entitled to reject that factual aspect of the basis of plea. A Newton hearing would not have assisted because the issue turned entirely on what the CCTV showed.
2. Guideline assessment. The judge had not sentenced the applicant as an instigator in culpability category 1A. He selected category 1B and increased the starting point modestly to reflect the applicant’s significant and persistent role, encouragement of others and other aggravating features. The approach was measured and relatively generous.
3. Comparative sentences. Each sentencing exercise is fact-specific. The information about other offenders did not establish unfair disparity. Applying the test stated in R v Fawcett (1983) 5 Cr App R(S) 158, right-thinking members of the public knowing the relevant facts and circumstances would not think that something had gone wrong with the administration of justice.
4. Mitigation and previous conviction. The judge considered the pre-sentence report, insight, remorse, rehabilitation, youth, capacity for work and the delay before sentence, and reduced the post-trial sentence by six months before giving credit for the guilty plea. The weight given to mitigation did not make the sentence manifestly excessive. The judge was also entitled to treat a fine imposed only days earlier for similar protest-related conduct as a highly relevant previous conviction. The modest uplift reflected that conviction together with the other aggravating features.

None of the grounds was reasonably arguable.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused on 3 November 2023: [2023] EWCA Crim 1530.
• Single judge — Leave to appeal was refused.
• Crown Court at Bristol — The applicant was sentenced by His Honour Judge Patrick on 21 February 2023 to four years and eight months’ imprisonment for riot. The arson charge resulted in a not guilty verdict under section 17 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.