R v Curtis Tudor

On a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, a sentence is unduly lenient only if it falls outside the reasonable sentencing range. The Court of Appeal does not resentence merely because it might have imposed a different sentence. Sentencing guideline categories require judicial evaluation rather than mechanistic classification. A case at the cusp between categories B and C may remain in category C with an appropriate upward adjustment. Sentencing remarks need not be prolix where the reasoning is reasonably clear. The application was therefore refused.

After pleading guilty to manslaughter, the respondent was sentenced by the Crown Court at Teesside to six years’ imprisonment for an assault that caused the victim’s death. The Solicitor General referred the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, arguing that the offence fell within category B of the unlawful act manslaughter guideline and that the judge had made insufficient adjustments for culpability and aggravating features. The respondent maintained that category C was available and that the sentence fell within the permissible range. The central issues were whether the sentence was unduly lenient and whether the sentencing judge’s reasoning and adjustments were legally adequate.

Application refused. The six-year sentence was not unduly lenient.

1. The Court applied the established principles summarised in Attorney-General’s Reference (Egan) [2022] EWCA Crim 1751; [2023] 2 Cr App R(S) 16. A first-instance judge is particularly well placed to assess competing sentencing factors. A sentence is unduly lenient only where it falls outside the range reasonably open to that judge. References should be entertained only in exceptional, non-borderline cases and are directed to gross error.
2. The Court does not sentence an offender for a second time. It cannot interfere simply because members of the appellate court might have imposed a different sentence.
3. The unlawful act manslaughter guideline requires evaluation of the particular facts rather than a mechanical categorisation. This case lay at the cusp between categories B and C. The judge was entitled to use category C, make an upward adjustment for culpability and aggravating features, take account of mitigation, and then apply appropriate credit for the guilty plea.
4. The sentencing remarks were reasonably clear. It was possible to discern why the judge reached his conclusions on the relevant issues. The Court encouraged succinct sentencing remarks and required no further explanation.
5. The Court also referred to the purposes of the reference scheme identified in Attorney-General’s Reference No 132 of 2001 (Bryn Dorrian Johnson) [2002] EWCA Crim 1418; [2003] 1 Cr App R(S) 41, including maintaining public confidence where sentencing departs substantially from ordinary norms. Those purposes did not alter the conclusion that this sentence remained within the reasonable range.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The Solicitor General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 was refused. The sentence was held not to be unduly lenient.
• Crown Court at Teesside: Following a guilty plea to manslaughter, HHJ Laird KC imposed six years’ imprisonment on 29 November 2024.