R v Rashko Kurtev

For a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, a sentence is unduly lenient if it falls outside the range reasonably open to a judge applying all relevant factors. In unlawful act manslaughter, a fatal attack with a heavy weapon carrying an obvious high risk of really serious harm indicates high culpability. A claimed defensive motive has little weight where the fatal blow is delivered in anger against a restrained person posing no threat. Under paragraph F3 of the guilty-plea guideline, a manslaughter plea first tendered on the day of trial ordinarily attracts a reduction of about 10 per cent where it was available from arraignment on murder. The court may depart modestly from that figure in the interests of justice.

The offender caused fatal head injuries by striking Mr McLeod with a metal chair. He was initially charged with offences under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, later charged with murder, and ultimately pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the day fixed for trial. HHJ James sentenced him at the Crown Court at Canterbury to three years and nine months’ imprisonment.

The Solicitor General referred the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, arguing that it was unduly lenient. The issues were whether the judge had correctly assessed culpability and whether a 25 per cent reduction for the guilty plea was justified.

1. Reference allowed. The sentence was unduly lenient. The court quashed the sentence of three years and nine months’ imprisonment and substituted six years’ imprisonment.
2. The correct test was whether the sentence fell outside the range which a judge, applying all relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate. The fatal second blow involved a heavy chair used as a weapon against a man who was being restrained and posed no threat. It was delivered in anger and retaliation. The risk of really serious harm was obvious. The offence was therefore at the upper end of the medium-culpability range. The offender’s initial defensive motivation had very limited significance in assessing the fatal blow. The judge’s 12-month allowance for mitigation was not itself unreasonable, but it should have been applied to a substantially longer sentence.
3. The appropriate sentence before mitigation was about eight years’ custody. After allowing 12 months for mitigation, the proper sentence before credit for plea was seven years. The offender’s limited command of English and intellectual capacity did not justify enhanced credit because he had been represented throughout and the proposed self-defence was unsupported by any reasonable factual basis.
4. Paragraph F3 of the reduction-for-plea guideline applied. Manslaughter had been a permissible alternative from the offender’s arraignment on murder, but no guilty plea was indicated until the day of trial. The appropriate reduction was therefore at or around 10 per cent. A modest additional allowance was justified by the prosecution’s late change of position, producing a sentence of six years.
5. The court retained a discretion whether to increase a sentence after finding it unduly lenient. In the circumstances, given the death caused by a weapon carrying a high risk of death or serious injury, it was compelled to exercise its power under section 36.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): on a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, held the sentence unduly lenient, quashed it and substituted six years’ imprisonment: [2025] EWCA Crim 149.
• Crown Court at Canterbury: HHJ James sentenced the offender, following his guilty plea to manslaughter, to three years and nine months’ imprisonment.