R v Michael Hannan

For manslaughter by a single punch, guideline culpability depends on the offender’s intended harm and awareness of risk, rather than the eventual fatal outcome. A non-premeditated single blow may properly remain in medium culpability where the sentencing judge is entitled to find neither an intention to cause harm just short of grievous bodily harm nor an obvious high risk of death.

A sentence may be lenient without being unduly lenient. However, where violent antecedents and the offender’s own conduct raise a real issue of dangerousness, a failure to obtain the necessary risk assessment can require resentencing. A persistent pattern of violence, minimisation and substance-fuelled aggression may establish the significant risk required for an extended sentence.

Michael Hannan pleaded guilty to manslaughter after punching James O’Hara once in the face during a street confrontation. Mr O’Hara fell, sustained skull fractures on striking the pavement, and died six days later. Hannan was sentenced to five years and four months’ imprisonment.

His Majesty’s Solicitor General made a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, contending that the sentence was unduly lenient, that the offence should have been placed in a higher guideline category, and that the sentencing judge should have found Hannan dangerous. The central issues were the proper culpability category, whether the custodial term warranted intervention, and whether an extended sentence was required.

1. The reference was allowed to the extent of substituting an extended determinate sentence. The court quashed the determinate sentence of five years and four months and imposed an extended determinate sentence of ten years and four months: a custodial term of five years and four months followed by an extended licence period of five years.
2. The sentencing judge was entitled to classify the manslaughter as medium culpability under the relevant guideline. Although the punch was forceful and caused death, the lack of premeditation and the fact that it was a single blow entitled the judge to find that Hannan neither intended harm just short of grievous bodily harm nor appreciated an obvious high risk of death. The eventual consequences and his prior convictions did not compel the contrary conclusion.
3. The court considered that the starting point should have been increased to reflect the aggravating features, especially the previous convictions. It estimated that a sentence after trial in the region of seven years, reduced by 10 per cent for the plea, would have produced six years and four months. The original term was therefore lenient, but not unduly lenient; that point alone would not have justified leave.
4. There was, however, a material error in the dangerousness assessment. The sentencing judge’s findings about Hannan’s violent record and his messages glorifying the assault undermined the conclusion that no pre-sentence report was required. Having considered the comprehensive post-sentence report, the court found a significant risk that Hannan would cause serious harm to the public through further specified offences for the purposes of section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020. His repeated violence, minimisation of responsibility, attribution of violence to provocation, and recurring alcohol- or drug-related offending supported that conclusion.
5. The custodial element was left unchanged, despite its leniency. The extended licence period was necessary to address the established dangerousness risk.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On a reference by His Majesty’s Solicitor General under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court granted leave and, in [2023] EWCA Crim 941, quashed the determinate sentence and substituted an extended determinate sentence.
• Sentencing court: On 29 April 2023, following a guilty plea to manslaughter, Hannan was sentenced to five years and four months’ imprisonment. The sentencing court is not identified in the judgment.