R v Federico Saurini

The normal starting points in Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020 are guides to seriousness, not inflexible tariffs. The sentencing judge must assess culpability and achieve a just result by considering aggravating and mitigating factors. Moving a knife a short distance from a kitchen into a private garden may fall outside the provision treating a weapon as taken to the scene. However, using that knife to kill remains a very serious aggravating factor and may justify a substantial uplift. On the facts, 15 years was the appropriate starting point, uplifted to 20 years and then reduced by six years for powerful mitigation. The resulting minimum term was not manifestly excessive.

Following a trial at the Crown Court at Luton, Federico Saurini was convicted of murdering Kameron Campbell. The jury found that he was entitled to intervene in defence of his former partner but used excessive and disproportionate force. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum term of 14 years less time spent on remand.

He appealed against sentence, arguing that the judge had adopted too high a starting point under Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020 and had made insufficient reduction for mitigation. The central issues were whether the knife had been taken to the scene and whether the resulting minimum term was manifestly excessive.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

1. Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020 provides normal starting points directed to the seriousness of the offending. It is not to be applied inflexibly. The sentencing judge must reach a just result by assessing culpability and then taking account of aggravating and mitigating factors. The court relied on R v Height and Anderson [2009] 1 Cr App R(S) 117 and R v M, AM and Kika [2010] 2 Cr App R(S) 19.
2. The case was borderline. On the particular facts, the appellant had not taken the knife to the scene within paragraph 4 of Schedule 21 because he had moved it only a very short distance from the kitchen into a private garden. The appropriate starting point was therefore 15 years under paragraph 5.
3. The movement of the knife from the kitchen into the garden and its use to commit the murder nevertheless constituted a very serious aggravating factor. It justified a substantial uplift from 15 years to 20 years. The court distinguished the different circumstances in Attorney General's Reference (R v Somers (Kerr Geoffrey)) [2018] EWCA Crim 2178, where the offender had deliberately armed himself, expected trouble and lain in wait.
4. The mitigation was powerful. It included the appellant's intervention in defence of another, lack of intent to kill, absence of planning, significant provocation, age, previous good character and the effect on his disabled son. The judge's six-year reduction, approximately 30 per cent of the 20-year starting point, was substantial and the resulting minimum term was not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was dismissed. [2023] EWCA Crim 1572.
• Crown Court at Luton: Following conviction for murder on 8 March 2023, the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum term of 14 years less time spent on remand.