R v Mark Anthony Hall

In sentencing for violent disorder, culpability must be assessed by reference to the individual offender’s role and conduct, rather than by treating every participant as part of the planned targeting undertaken by others. An offender who joins only after the incident has begun, without prior knowledge or a weapon, may fall within category 2B even where the wider incident is category 2A. Violence-related previous convictions, the custodial setting and use of a missile remain relevant aggravating features. Limits on the offender’s role and personal mitigation must receive due weight. Immediate custody may nevertheless be required where the seriousness of the offending outweighs the case for suspension.

After pleading guilty on the day of trial, the appellant was sentenced by the Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne to 22 months’ imprisonment for violent disorder contrary to section 2 of the Public Order Act 1986. He had joined a prison disturbance after it had begun, had no prior knowledge of the attack, and threw a pool ball towards the injured prisoner after being struck by pool balls himself.

He appealed on the grounds that the sentencing judge had wrongly treated him as part of a planned joint enterprise, had placed the offending in culpability category 2A rather than 2B, had imposed a manifestly excessive sentence, and had wrongly refused to suspend it. The central issues were the correct guideline categorisation, the weight to be given to aggravating and mitigating features, and whether immediate custody was justified.

1. Correct culpability category. The judge had wrongly treated the appellant’s offending as category 2A because the wider incident involved a planned joint enterprise targeting an individual and weapons made in advance. The appellant’s accepted basis of plea, properly qualified by the judge’s viewing of the CCTV, established that he had no prior knowledge, arrived without a weapon, did not enter the cell, and was struck by a pool ball before throwing one himself. His conduct was materially distinct from that of the principal attackers and fell within category 2B.
2. Aggravating and mitigating features. The appellant’s violence-related previous convictions could not be overlooked. The custodial setting and the throwing of a pool ball, including in unreasonable self-defence, were also relevant aggravating features. The court nevertheless gave proper weight to the limits of his role and to his personal mitigation.
3. Sentence. On the particular facts and basis of plea, the sentence before credit for plea should not have exceeded 18 months. Applying 10% credit and rounding down, the appropriate sentence was 16 months’ imprisonment.
4. Suspension. The sentencing judge had made no error of principle in refusing to suspend the sentence. He had considered the relevant guideline and the sentences imposed on the other defendants. The seriousness and danger of the prison incident justified immediate custody and outweighed the factors supporting suspension.

The appeal was allowed to the extent of reducing the sentence to 16 months’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal was allowed in part and the sentence was reduced from 22 months to 16 months’ imprisonment: [2025] EWCA Crim 1605.
• Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne: Following the appellant’s plea on the day of trial, the court imposed 22 months’ imprisonment for violent disorder.