R v Elijah Moussa Clark

An appellate court will not interfere with a sentence merely because another judge might have selected a different term. It will uphold a sentence where the trial judge has correctly identified the sentencing category and range, considered material aggravating and mitigating factors, applied totality, and imposed a term that is not manifestly excessive.

Where overall criminality is reflected in the sentence for the principal offence, associated offending and breach of a suspended sentence order may justify an uplift from the guideline starting point. A technical misdescription of detention as imprisonment for an offender under 21 may be corrected without allowing an appeal where the proper sentence is otherwise clear.

The applicant was convicted at Chelmsford Crown Court of manslaughter and assault occasioning actual bodily harm after a fatal knife attack on a 16-year-old and an injury to the victim's friend. He had been acquitted of murder and of possessing a bladed article in public. Sweeting J sentenced him to 13 years for manslaughter, with concurrent sentences for assault and breach of a suspended sentence order.

The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal against sentence. He contended that the judge had given excessive weight to aggravating features and insufficient weight to youth, immaturity, personal mitigation and rehabilitation. A further issue arose because the sentencing remarks referred to imprisonment although the applicant was under 21.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. Manslaughter sentencing is highly fact specific. The trial judge, having presided at trial, was best placed to assess the proper factual basis for sentence and the weight of the relevant factors.

2. The judge was entitled to place the offence in culpability category B under the applicable guideline. The use of a large knife directed towards the victim's neck created an obvious high risk of death or serious injury. The 12-year starting point and range of 8 to 16 years were therefore correctly identified.

3. The judge had properly considered both aggravation and mitigation. The aggravating features included the victim's age and smaller build, the sustained attack, use and disposal of the knife, commission in a public place, and offending while subject to a suspended sentence order. He also considered the applicant's youth, immaturity, troubled background, remorse and realistic rehabilitation prospects, with reference to R v ZA [2023] 2 Cr App R (S).

4. Applying totality, the judge was entitled to reflect the overall criminality in the manslaughter sentence. The assault and breach of the suspended sentence order themselves justified an uplift from the guideline starting point. The disposal of the knife was materially aggravating because recovery could have yielded evidence relevant to the applicant's account of how he acquired it. The resulting term of 13 years was within the guideline range and was not manifestly excessive.

5. The sentence of imprisonment was technically unlawful because Sentencing Act 2020, section 227 prohibited imprisonment for a person under 21. Following R v Stocker [2013] EWCA Crim 1993, the court did not allow an appeal solely for that defect. It directed amendment of the Crown Court record so that every sentence was recorded as detention in a young offender institution.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence in [2025] EWCA Crim 931, but directed correction of the Crown Court record to record detention in a young offender institution.
• Crown Court at Chelmsford: Sweeting J convicted the applicant of manslaughter and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and sentenced him to 13 years for manslaughter with concurrent sentences for the other offences.