Christopher Donaldson v R

In a renewed sentence appeal, permission should be refused where the proposed grounds disclose no arguable error in the sentencing judge’s approach. Under the Sentencing Act 2020, Schedule 21 starting points must be adjusted for aggravating and mitigating features, with totality addressed where other offences are sentenced alongside murder. A case falling short of the 25-year category may still warrant a substantial uplift from 15 years. Knife use during the incident, multiple injuries, a serious violent record and lack of remorse justified an uplift to 21 years for murder. The additional minimum-term component for other offences was properly moderated to three years. The aggregate 24-year minimum term was not manifestly excessive.

Following a trial at Leeds Crown Court, the appellant was convicted of murder, wounding with intent and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He received life imprisonment with a 24-year minimum term under Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020, comprising 21 years for murder and three years for the other offences.

The sentencing judge rejected self-defence and treated the knife use, injuries, violent convictions and absence of remorse as aggravating. No intent to kill and lack of premeditation were accepted as mitigating. A single judge refused permission to appeal. The renewed application challenged the 21-year murder term, the application of totality and the overall minimum term. The central issue was whether any ground was arguable.

Application for permission to appeal refused. Mr Justice Cavanagh, giving the judgment of the court, agreed entirely with the single judge’s reasons.

1. The sentencing judge had adopted a 15-year starting point under Schedule 21 because the appellant had not taken a knife to the scene. A substantial uplift was nevertheless justified because he obtained and used a knife during the violence, inflicted three injuries including one to the back, had a serious history of violent offending and showed no remorse. The absence of an intention to kill and lack of premeditation were properly treated as mitigation.
2. The case was close in some respects to, but did not reach, a 25-year starting-point case under paragraph 5A of Schedule 21. That comparison, together with the aggravating features, made an uplift to 21 years for the murder properly open to the sentencing judge.
3. The judge also addressed totality. Although the two other offences would otherwise have attracted nine years in total, the additional minimum-term component was reduced to three years, taking account of the overall criminality and the fact that a determinate sentence would not ordinarily be served in full.
4. The proposed grounds concerning the murder term, totality and manifest excessiveness disclosed no arguable basis. The overall minimum term of 24 years, less time spent on remand, was not excessive. The renewed application was therefore refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2024] EWCA Crim 55, the court agreed with the single judge and refused the renewed application for permission to appeal.
• Single judge — Permission to appeal against sentence was refused because the proposed grounds disclosed no arguable basis.
• Leeds Crown Court — Following conviction after trial, the court imposed life imprisonment with a 24-year minimum term.