R v Zaron John Gordon Benson

The victim for sentencing-guideline purposes is the person to whom a threat to kill is made, not the person who is its object. Within the applicable category, the court may consider the seriousness of the threat, the offender’s preparedness and progress towards carrying it out, and the wider context. Those matters may justify movement to the top of the sentencing range even if they are not specifically identified in the guideline. Self-inflicted intoxication may materially reduce mitigation, while relevant violent convictions may aggravate sentence. The court further indicated that an imminently intended threat, substantially progressed towards execution, may warrant immediate custody even where the guideline category is relatively low.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Basingstoke Magistrates’ Court to making a threat to kill contrary to section 16 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He was committed for sentence under section 14 of the Sentencing Act 2020 and, on 25 September 2025, received 28 months’ imprisonment at Winchester Crown Court.

The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal after refusal by a single judge. He challenged the sentence as disproportionate, relying on the treatment of aggravating factors, his mental-health difficulties, alcohol dependency and remorse, and contending that a suspended sentence should have been considered. The central issues were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether immediate custody was justified.

1. Application refused. The sentence of 28 months’ imprisonment was severe but was not outside the range of sentences available to the sentencing judge and was not manifestly excessive.
2. For the sentencing guideline, the victim was the call handler to whom the threats were made, rather than the neighbour who was the object of those threats. The offence was correctly categorised as A3.
3. In deciding where within the A3 range the sentence should fall, the court was entitled to consider the seriousness of the threat and the extent to which the applicant was prepared to carry it out. The dangerously high gas level, the evacuation and the fact that emergency intervention averted an explosion were highly relevant. The applicant intended the threat to be believed, intended to carry it out imminently, and had made substantial progress towards doing so.
4. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat self-inflicted intoxication as the predominant factor when assessing mitigation. The reports supported the conclusion that little mitigation could properly be relied upon, although the applicant’s mental-health difficulties were not disregarded.
5. The applicant’s previous convictions for violence, including the section 18 offence under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, were properly treated as aggravating. Together with the ongoing neighbour dispute, they justified the further uplift before the one-third reduction for the guilty plea.
6. The court added, by way of alternative observation, that even if a sentence of two years or less had been appropriate, only an immediate custodial sentence would have been suitable in view of the imminence and seriousness of the intended threat.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 9 December 2025, the renewed application for leave to appeal was refused. The sentence was upheld as not manifestly excessive.
• Crown Court at Winchester: On 25 September 2025, Her Honour Judge Morris sentenced the applicant to 28 months’ imprisonment.