R v Mark Green

For unlawful-act manslaughter, a single punch may properly fall within Category B high culpability where its force creates a high risk of grievous bodily harm which was or ought objectively to have been obvious. An offender’s failure actually to consider that risk does not prevent that categorisation.

Full credit for a guilty plea requires an unequivocal acceptance of responsibility at the earliest opportunity. Where an accused initially denies the conduct causing the injury, a plea entered when a later manslaughter count is added will not necessarily attract one-third credit. The appellate court will not interfere where the sentencing judge has properly balanced the guideline starting point, aggravating features and mitigation and the resulting sentence is not manifestly excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty to manslaughter after punching Anthony Armstrong once in the face during a street altercation. The blow rendered Mr Armstrong unconscious; he fell and sustained fatal head injuries. On 2 May 2023, the Crown Court at Canterbury imposed eight years’ imprisonment.

The sentencing judge placed the offence in Category B high culpability under the applicable manslaughter guideline. He made a global one-third reduction for plea and mitigation. The appellant appealed, contending that Category C applied, that greater allowance was required for a single punch and mitigation, and that his plea attracted full credit.

The central issues were the proper culpability category, the appropriate plea credit, and whether the resulting sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The judge was entitled to categorise the offence as Category B high culpability. The appellant delivered a very hard punch, causing nasal fractures and unconsciousness before the victim struck the ground. At the least, that unlawful act carried a high risk of grievous bodily harm which was or ought to have been obvious to him objectively.

2. The finding on dangerousness did not conflict with Category B. The judge’s conclusion that the appellant had given no thought to the likely serious consequences concerned his subjective state of mind. Category B was available because the risk of serious injury ought objectively to have been obvious.

3. The proper guilty-plea credit was 25 per cent, not one-third. Applying the guidance in R v Plaku [2021] EWCA Crim 568, full credit depended on an unequivocal early acceptance of responsibility for the conduct later charged as manslaughter. Although the appellant initially faced a section 18 charge, he continued to deny having punched the victim and did not indicate a willingness to admit the conduct amounting to unlawful wounding.

4. The court treated the eight-year sentence as equivalent to 10 years and eight months before plea credit, below the 12-year Category B starting point. A single punch could ordinarily justify a reduction, as the comparison with R v Pool [2023] EWCA Crim 946 illustrated. Here, however, the appellant’s violent record and other aggravating features materially reduced the weight of that consideration and of his personal mitigation. The pre-credit sentence was not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The appeal against sentence was dismissed: [2023] EWCA Crim 1567.
• Crown Court at Canterbury. On 2 May 2023, the appellant was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to manslaughter.