R v Brandon Rennie

Under Criminal Justice Act 1988, a sentence is unduly lenient only where it falls outside the range reasonably open to the sentencing judge. Intervention is exceptional and is not warranted in a borderline case. The Court of Appeal must not sentence afresh or substitute its own assessment of matters of fact, degree and evaluation. A sentence may be merciful without being unduly lenient. The court may intervene where the sentencing assessment was not reasonably open or involved an error of principle.

The offender, then serving a custodial sentence, pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Stafford to wounding with intent and possessing an unauthorised bladed article in prison. He had used a homemade weapon to slash another prisoner’s face, causing wounds requiring stitches and permanent scarring.

On 16 May 2024 the Crown Court imposed 40 months’ imprisonment for the wounding, consecutive to the existing sentence, with eight months concurrently for the bladed article. The sentence was amended under the slip rule on 13 June 2024. The Solicitor General sought leave to refer the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, contending that the guideline categorisation and adjustment for aggravation and mitigation made it unduly lenient.

1. The application was refused. The 40-month consecutive sentence could be regarded as merciful, but it was not unduly lenient.

2. The court applied the established section 36 principles summarised in Attorney-General's Reference (Azad) [2021] EWCA Crim 1846. A sentence is unduly lenient only if it lies outside the range reasonably open to the sentencing judge. References should be entertained only exceptionally, not in borderline cases, and address gross error.

3. Following Attorney-General's Reference (No 4 of 1989) (1990) 90 Cr App R 366, the court stressed that it must not retake the sentencing decision. It must not substitute its assessment of matters such as whether planning was significant or a weapon highly dangerous merely because it might have reached a different view.

4. The seriousness of a planned prison attack with a bladed weapon, the victim’s injury and the offender’s record were substantial aggravating matters. However, the sentencing judge was a senior and experienced judge who had undertaken the required evaluative exercise. Her assessments of culpability, harm, mitigation and totality were not shown to be unreasonable or erroneous in principle.

5. The Solicitor General’s application under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 was therefore refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2024] EWCA Crim 1016, refused the Solicitor General’s application under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer the sentence as unduly lenient.
• Crown Court at Stafford: On 16 May 2024, imposed 40 months’ imprisonment for wounding with intent, consecutive to the existing sentence, and eight months concurrently for possessing an unauthorised bladed article in prison. The sentence was amended under the slip rule on 13 June 2024.