R v Syd Goss

On a sentence appeal, the statutory question is whether the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. Disparity between co-offenders rarely succeeds by itself, and one sentencing error is not corrected by replicating it in another sentence. Appellate courts generally respect a trial judge’s evaluative assessment of the offenders’ respective roles, particularly where the judge heard the evidence. Youth mitigation requires attention to maturity rather than age alone. For murder done for gain, the relevant statutory starting point may be adjusted for aggravating and mitigating factors.

Following a trial before a judge and jury, the applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 29 years, less time spent on remand, under the Sentencing Act 2020. Two co-defendants were also convicted and received minimum terms of 29 and 27 years. The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge had overstated his culpability, given insufficient weight to his age and the fact that he did not stab the victim, and imposed a disproportionate sentence compared with his co-defendants. The central issue was whether the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

The court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal sentence.

1. Applicable test. The sole statutory test on a sentence appeal was whether the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. Disparity alone rarely provides a successful ground of appeal. One sentencing error is not cured by making another. The court referred to R v Wilson [2017] EWCA Crim 1860, [2018] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 25 and R v Anderson and Black [2018] EWCA Crim 482.
2. The judge correctly identified 30 years as the relevant starting point for a murder done for gain under paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020. He was entitled to increase the term for aggravating factors, including the group attack, the drug-dealing background and efforts to conceal the crime, and to reduce it for mitigation, including the applicant’s young child and ADHD.
3. The judge considered the applicant’s age with conspicuous care and correctly focused on maturity rather than age itself. Having heard the applicant give evidence and considered his background, he was entitled to find that the applicant was not immature. His operation of a substantial drugs business and ability to influence the other offenders supported that assessment.
4. The trial judge was well placed to assess the respective roles and culpability of the three offenders. Although all three participated in a joint enterprise and were ready to use knives, their circumstances differed. The applicant’s role as ringleader was a central sentencing consideration. A detailed comparison of the three sentences was unrewarding, and there was no real prospect of appellate interference with the overall evaluative assessment or the resulting minimum term.

The renewed application was therefore refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 3 May 2023, refused the renewed application for leave to appeal sentence.
• Crown Court: Following trial, convicted the applicant of murder and imposed life imprisonment with a minimum term of 29 years, less time spent on remand.