R v Shaquille Williams

For sentencing under the bladed-article guideline, the factor concerning a place where vulnerable people are likely to be present does not apply merely because a public place may be visited by children or other vulnerable people. It is directed to taking a knife to a school or comparable place, or to a place where vulnerable people are deliberately gathered, intending to create a risk of harm. The risk of serious disorder is a separate factor and may arise from carrying a deadly weapon in anticipation of knife fighting in public. One Category 1 harm factor is sufficient. The risk of harm to vulnerable people may remain an aggravating feature even where the specific location factor is not established. Suspension may properly be refused where there is no real prospect of rehabilitation and a risk to the public.

The applicant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity to possessing a bladed article in a public place. The Crown Court at Manchester sentenced him to 16 months’ imprisonment after placing the offence in Category A1 under the applicable sentencing guideline. The judge treated the Trafford Centre as a place where vulnerable people were likely to be present, found a risk of serious disorder, increased the sentence for a previous conviction, allowed full credit for the guilty plea and declined to suspend the sentence.

The applicant challenged the guideline categorisation, the finding of serious disorder and the refusal to suspend the sentence. The central issues were the proper scope of the two Category 1 harm factors and the application of the suspension guidance.

Disposition. Leave to appeal was granted so that the court’s guidance could acquire such authoritative status as warranted. The appeal was dismissed.

1. Guideline approach. The offence-specific guideline had to be applied flexibly to the facts found in each case. The knife was a highly dangerous sheath knife with no domestic or industrial use. The applicant had deliberately carried it while anticipating possible trouble. The offence therefore fell clearly within Category A culpability.
2. Vulnerable people factor. The phrase concerning a school or other place where vulnerable people were likely to be present was not directed to every public place accessible to vulnerable people. It contemplated taking a knife to a school or comparable place, such as a hospital or care home, or to a place where children, older people or others had deliberately gathered, with an intended risk of an incident causing harm. The Trafford Centre did not fall within that category merely because families and children might be present. Manzeke [2019] EWCA Crim 1287 and Akinjiola [2023] EWCA Crim 158 illustrated the distinction. Even where the specific factor was not established, the risk of harm to vulnerable people remained a relevant aggravating feature.
3. Serious disorder and sentence. The applicant had carried a deadly weapon while anticipating trouble. The judge was entitled to find that this created the prospect of young men fighting with knives in a public place, endangering bystanders. The risk-of-serious-disorder factor was therefore present, and one Category 1 factor was sufficient. The 18-month starting point was appropriate. The previous conviction, offending on bail and habitual carrying of a knife justified increasing it to two years before the one-third guilty-plea credit was applied.
4. Suspension. Applying the imposition guideline, the judge was entitled to find no real prospect of rehabilitation and a risk to the public. Refusal to suspend the sentence was plainly open to him and correct. Dabin [2023] EWCA Crim 399 did not alter the analysis: sentencing decisions were governed principally by proper application of the guidelines rather than by previous decisions.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 4 March 2025, leave was granted and the appeal against sentence was dismissed: [2025] EWCA Crim 873.
• Crown Court at Manchester, Minshull Street: On 23 January 2025, the applicant was sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment.
• Magistrates’ Court: On 1 November 2024, the applicant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and was committed for sentence.