R v Christopher Anjad Gifari

On a sentence appeal, the appellate court may uphold an increase from the sentencing starting point where the judge has carefully assessed the aggravating and mitigating features and made factual findings supported by the evidence. Mitigation does not automatically require a reduction from the starting point. The relevant question is whether the sentencing judge was entitled to conclude that the overall balance justified an increase. An application based on manifest excess will fail where the sentence is neither excessive nor manifestly excessive.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Cardiff of murder and robbery. He received a life sentence for murder, with a minimum term of 32 years less 245 days spent on remand, and a concurrent 10-year sentence for robbery.

He renewed his application for leave to appeal against sentence after refusal by a single judge. The sole ground was that the minimum term was manifestly excessive because the sentencing judge had increased the 30-year starting point instead of reducing it for mitigation. The central issue was whether the judge was entitled, having assessed the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, to increase the starting point.

The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

1. The sentencing judge had approached the aggravating and mitigating circumstances with care and in detail. His factual findings were open to him on the evidence.
2. The aggravating features included the use of the stolen van as a weapon, the victim’s severe mental and physical suffering, the victim’s status as a delivery driver performing a public service, and the applicant’s relevant previous convictions.
3. The judge had taken account of mitigation, including the absence of premeditation and the applicant’s engagement with rehabilitation programmes. He was nevertheless entitled to find that the overall balance weighed against the applicant.
4. That conclusion entitled the judge to increase the 30-year starting point to a minimum term of 32 years, subject to credit for time spent on remand. The fact that mitigation existed did not require the starting point to be reduced.
5. The sentence was not excessive, and still less was it manifestly excessive. The application was therefore refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused: [2024] EWCA Crim 1419.
2. Single judge The initial application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.
3. Crown Court at Cardiff The applicant was convicted of murder and robbery and sentenced on 1 December 2023. A life sentence was imposed for murder, with a minimum term of 32 years less 245 days spent on remand, and a concurrent 10-year sentence for robbery.