R v Reece Joseph Steven

On an appeal against sentence, the Court of Appeal will not interfere with a trial judge’s factual assessment of an offender’s role unless there is internal inconsistency, inconsistency with uncontroverted evidence or irrationality.

An offender may properly be sentenced for a central role in a conspiracy even though another participant was its mastermind. Where absence of an intention to kill is treated as mitigation, prolonged suffering may both aggravate the offence and reduce the weight given to that mitigation. That is not double counting if the suffering is used to assess the extent of the mitigating factor.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Bolton before Goose J of conspiracy to commit robbery and murder. He received a life sentence for murder with a minimum term of 37 years, together with 16 years for the conspiracy, to run concurrently.

He renewed an application for leave to appeal against sentence. He argued that the judge had overstated his role by treating him as being at the centre of the conspiracy, and had failed to give proper effect to the absence of an intention to kill. The central issues were whether the factual assessment of his role was open to the judge and whether the treatment of prolonged suffering involved double counting.

The court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence.

1. Assessment of role. The sentencing judge had also been the trial judge and had made findings of fact about the applicant’s role. Appellate interference was justified only for a feature such as internal inconsistency, inconsistency with uncontroverted evidence or irrationality. No such feature existed. Although the applicant was not the mastermind, the judge was entitled to find that he had played a central role and to sentence him on that basis.
2. Intention to kill and double counting. The judge had accepted that there was no intention to kill. The prolonged mistreatment and abuse of the victim over approximately two hours was nevertheless a proper aggravating feature. It was also proper to conclude that the absence of an intention to kill provided little mitigation because the prolonged suffering substantially reduced its weight. That approach assessed the extent of the mitigating factor and did not count the suffering twice.
3. Emergency call. The court did not need to determine whether the 999-call had been made by the victim or by one of the offenders. The judge’s finding that there was no intention to kill did not depend on that issue. Even if the call had been made by one of the offenders, they had failed to follow the operator’s instructions, leaving the call ineffective and the victim to die.
4. Result. The murder involved a carefully planned robbery, prolonged torture, extensive violence and destruction of evidence. The starting point was 30 years, with further aggravation from the planning, suffering, previous robbery convictions and the applicant’s being on licence. The court was unable to find that the sentence was arguably manifestly excessive and accordingly refused the application.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 11 February 2025, the court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence: [2025] EWCA Crim 154.
• Crown Court at Bolton — On 22 February 2023, Goose J sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment with a specified minimum term of 37 years for murder and 16 years for conspiracy to commit robbery, concurrent.