Connor William Chapman v Rex

In murder sentencing under Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020, statutory starting points must be applied flexibly to achieve a just and proportionate sentence. The court must reflect associated offences, but avoid double counting features already reflected in the starting point or inherent in the crime. Sentence severity is assessed by reference to the facts of the particular case; comparisons with other cases or hypothetical more serious offending are generally unhelpful. Age is relevant mitigation, but its weight depends on maturity and culpability in context. In a borderline whole-life case, a finite minimum term leaving possible release only in the final years of life may nevertheless be proportionate and not manifestly excessive.

Following a jury trial before Mr Justice Goose at Liverpool Crown Court, the appellant was convicted of murder, two attempted murders, two offences under section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, assault, firearms offences and handling stolen goods. He received a mandatory life sentence with a 48-year minimum term, less time spent on remand, together with concurrent sentences for the other offences.

Leave to appeal was sought on the grounds that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the judge had failed to assess the offending against other exceptionally serious cases, had given insufficient weight to his age, had double counted aggravating features and had overstated planning. The central issue was whether the 48-year minimum term was manifestly excessive.

The court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal against sentence. The minimum term remained 48 years, less 176 days spent on remand.

1. The statutory scheme required consideration of whether the seriousness of the murder justified a whole life order. If not, a minimum term had to be fixed under sections 321 and 322 of the Sentencing Act 2020, applying Schedule 21 flexibly rather than mechanically. The finite term had to reflect the seriousness of the offending overall. The court relied on the principles summarised in R v Stewart and Others [2022] EWCA Crim 1063, including the possibility of a finite term where the case was doubtful for whole-life custody, citing R v Jones [2005] EWCA Crim 3115.
2. Comparisons with other cases, including R v Stewart and Others [2022] EWCA Crim 1063 and R v Cashman [2023] EWCA Crim 1349, were unlikely to assist. The proper question was whether the sentence was just and proportionate on the facts of this case, rather than where it fell on a hypothetical spectrum.
3. The judge was entitled to impose a substantial initial uplift from the 30-year firearm-murder starting point. Relevant factors included gang-related criminality, planning and premeditation, the use of a sub-machine gun in a crowded public place on Christmas Eve, and concerted efforts to conceal evidence. The appellant’s age had some, but very limited, mitigating weight. The sentencing judge had heard the appellant give evidence and was well placed to assess his maturity and culpability in the context of his embedded criminal lifestyle.
4. Each associated offence had to be reflected, subject to totality. The court applied R v Stanciu [2022] EWCA Crim 1117 in avoiding double counting, and applied Attorney General's Reference (No 126 of 2010) [2011] EWCA Crim 725, R v Thillainathan: Setting of Minimum Terms [2007] EWHC 1323 QB and R v Soj [2022] EWCA Crim 1730 in reflecting associated criminality without adding sentences arithmetically. The further uplift reflected the intended killing of two people and the actual serious injuries to additional victims.
5. The resulting 48-year term was severe but not manifestly excessive. This was a borderline case in which the judge was entitled to leave open possible release only in the final years of the appellant’s life.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): leave to appeal granted, but the appeal against sentence dismissed; the 48-year minimum term, less 176 days on remand, was confirmed. [2024] EWCA Crim 190
• Liverpool Crown Court: following conviction, Mr Justice Goose imposed a mandatory life sentence with a 48-year minimum term and concurrent sentences for the associated offences.