Lucy Connolly v R

Where a sentencing guideline requires the court to select the category which most closely resembles the case, the judge must make that assessment independently. A guilty plea without a basis of plea does not prevent that assessment. Words whose plain meaning incites serious violence may properly justify the highest culpability category.

An appellate court will not interfere with the sentencing judge’s evaluation of aggravation and mitigation merely because another judge might have reached a different balance. Intervention requires a sentence outside the range properly open to the sentencing judge. Personal tragedy may explain an offender’s reaction but need not materially reduce culpability for deliberately inciting serious violence.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Birmingham Crown Court to publishing and distributing written material intending to stir up racial hatred, contrary to section 19(1) of the Public Order Act 1986. The material was a social-media post made after the Southport murders, calling for migrant hotels to be set on fire. She received 31 months’ imprisonment.

Her application for leave to appeal against sentence challenged the categorisation of the offence as category A, category 1 under the relevant sentencing guideline. She also contended that the judge gave insufficient weight to mitigation. The Court of Appeal heard oral evidence from the applicant and her former representative about the advice given before her guilty plea.

1. The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The 31-month sentence remained in force.

2. The applicant’s post was, on its plain meaning, an incitement to serious violence. It was therefore properly treated as falling within category A culpability and category 1 harm under the relevant guideline. Although a sentencing judge must independently decide which guideline category most closely resembles the case under section 60(4) of the Sentencing Act 2020, the parties’ agreed categorisation was plainly correct on these facts.

3. The court rejected the contention that the applicant did not understand that she was conceding an intention to incite serious violence. It accepted her representative’s evidence that he had explained the guideline, the consequences of advancing a basis of plea, and the prospect of a Newton hearing. Her guilty plea without a basis, and her acceptance of the sentencing submissions, meant that ground was unarguable.

4. The sentencing judge had identified all relevant mitigation. An appellate court does not interfere merely because it might have attached a different weight to aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The applicant’s personal tragedy could explain the intensity of her reaction, but could not significantly reduce culpability for choosing to incite serious violence against many people. Her other social-media messages were relevant context when assessing remorse, insight and the claimed mitigation.

5. The judge was entitled to find that the sensitive social climate and the dissemination of the post outweighed mitigation and required an upward adjustment from the guideline starting point. No loss of time order was made.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The application for leave to appeal against the 31-month sentence was refused.
• Crown Court at Birmingham: On 31 October 2024, the Recorder of Birmingham sentenced the applicant to 31 months’ imprisonment following her guilty plea to an offence under section 19(1) of the Public Order Act 1986.