R v Nina Manley

Sentencing guidelines must be followed, but they do not exhaust the relevant features of offending. An imminent intention to kill or cause serious injury with bladed weapons remains a material aggravating factor even where it is not expressly listed in the guideline’s categorisation factors. Sentencers must identify the starting point most closely related to the conduct, then assess all aggravating and mitigating features to impose a proportionate sentence and, where relevant, protect the public. The combination of planned lethal violence, threats to kill, racially motivated targeting, multiple knives and relevant previous offending may require immediate custody. A suspended sentence is unavailable where no other disposal can properly reflect the seriousness of the offending.

Following guilty pleas, the Crown Court at Taunton imposed a 12-month custodial sentence suspended for two years for threatening to kill, with concurrent three-month suspended sentences for three bladed-article offences. The Solicitor General applied under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, alleging undue leniency, incorrect guideline categorisation, excessive weight given to mental disorder and failure to impose immediate custody. The central issues were the proper categorisation of the weapon offences, the relevance of the offender’s intention to use the knives lethally, the significance of racially aggravated previous convictions, and whether the sentence could properly be suspended.

Disposition. Leave was granted and the reference succeeded. The sentences imposed by the Crown Court were quashed and replaced with immediate imprisonment.

1. Sentencers are required to follow applicable sentencing guidelines. That duty includes identifying the starting point which most closely relates to the offender’s conduct. The court must then stand back and assess the aggravating and mitigating features to reach a proportionate sentence, including an element of public protection where appropriate.
2. The guidelines did not expressly identify an imminent intention to use bladed articles to kill or cause serious injury as a culpability or harm factor. That omission did not make the feature irrelevant. The same principle applied to the guideline for threatening to kill. The offender’s intention to kill people shortly, unless stopped, was plainly relevant to sentence.
3. The three bladed-article offences were category 1A offences. Possession of three knives, combined with hostility towards persons identified by race and possibly religion, engaged culpability A and the highest harm category, giving a starting point of 18 months’ custody.
4. The offender’s recent convictions for racially aggravated offending were highly significant aggravating circumstances, particularly because the present offending had similar characteristics and involved weapons intended for use. The court took account of the offender’s difficult upbringing, personality disorder, intermittent mental illness and guilty plea, but these matters did not justify suspension.
5. The offending was exceptionally serious and involved a clear risk to the public. Although the court did not find that the offender was dangerous within the statutory scheme, immediate imprisonment was the only proper disposal. The appropriate sentence was three years before credit for the guilty plea, reduced by one-third to two years. The three-month sentences on the remaining charges remained concurrent, and the other Crown Court orders stood.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, leave was granted and the application succeeded. The suspended sentence was quashed and replaced with two years’ immediate imprisonment, with concurrent three-month terms on the other charges.
2. Crown Court at Taunton: On 19 September 2025, the offender was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment suspended for two years for threatening to kill, with concurrent three-month suspended sentences for three offences contrary to section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. An error concerning credit was corrected under the slip rule on 30 September 2025.