R v Oliver Scott & Anor

In sentencing appeals, the appellate court will not resolve medical or factual questions that should have been determined below. A sentencing judge may place unlawful-act manslaughter in a higher culpability category where the evidence supports an intention to cause serious harm or an obvious high risk of death or grievous bodily harm. In conspiracy to pervert justice, disposal of a body may place the offence at the top of the appropriate scale. Alleged disparity requires a high threshold, and totality requires a just and proportionate overall sentence, without regard to release arrangements. The applications for extensions of time and leave to appeal were refused.

Oliver Scott was convicted at the Central Criminal Court of conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. Stasious Scott pleaded guilty to manslaughter and the same conspiracy and received a total sentence of 13 years, comprising a 13-year sentence for manslaughter and a concurrent sentence of four and a half years for the conspiracy.

Stasious sought extensions of time and renewal of his application for leave to appeal against sentence. Oliver renewed his application for leave. The issues included the categorisation of the manslaughter, alleged disparity with the sentences of other conspirators, totality, the structure of concurrent sentences, and the factual findings and starting point adopted in Oliver’s sentence.

Applications refused. The court refused Stasious’s applications for extensions of time and his renewed application for leave to appeal. Oliver’s renewed application for leave was also refused.

1. The appellate court would not resolve medical or other factual questions that could and should have been resolved before the sentencing judge. Stasious’s carefully drafted basis of plea left it open to the judge to find, on the pathology evidence, that an act which began as self-defence became an act involving an intention to cause harm falling just short of grievous bodily harm. The judge was also entitled to find that sustained compression of the neck carried an obvious high risk of death or grievous bodily harm. No Newton hearing had been sought below.
2. The judge was entitled to place the manslaughter in the high culpability category, make an upward adjustment within the applicable range, and give limited mitigation for the initial element of self-defence and the other mitigating factors. The challenge disclosed no arguable error of law or approach.
3. For the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, the relevant culpability factors included the seriousness of the underlying offence, persistence, and the effect of the attempts to pervert justice. Applying R v Godward [1998] 1 Cr App R(S) 385, the removal of a body justified treating the offence as being at the top of the appropriate scale. The judge had not double-counted the conspiracy in sentencing for manslaughter.
4. Alleged disparity is subject to the high test stated in R v Balfour Beatty Rail Infrastructure Services Ltd [2007] 1 Cr App R(S) 65: whether informed right-thinking members of the public would consider that something had gone wrong with the administration of justice. That test was not met.
5. The sentencing judge had applied totality and was entitled to impose concurrent sentences producing a just and proportionate overall sentence. The court was not required to structure the sentences to secure a more favourable release regime. In Oliver’s case, the trial judge was best placed to assess the facts and his knowledge and conduct, and the six-year sentence was not arguably manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): the court refused the applications for extensions of time and renewed applications for leave to appeal. [2024] EWCA Crim 1723
• Single judge: refused the applications for leave to appeal.
• Central Criminal Court: Oliver was convicted and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. Stasious pleaded guilty to manslaughter and conspiracy and was sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment overall, with a concurrent sentence for the conspiracy.