R v Daniel Barton-Kennedy

On an appeal against a Court-Martial sentence, the Court of Appeal assesses whether the overall package was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, while giving appropriate respect to the tribunal’s military expertise. For disobedience to a lawful command under the Armed Forces Act 2006, maintenance of military discipline is an additional sentencing purpose. Deliberate or prolonged disobedience in an operational environment, creating a security or operational risk, may warrant the highest guideline categories and a deterrent sentence. A guilty plea, self-reporting, personal mitigation and family impact do not necessarily require suspension or further reduction. Later events may be considered where they show that a foreseeable risk at sentence has materialised. A compassionate-release power may be relevant, but its exercise remains for the Commandant.

The appellant, a serving Corporal, pleaded guilty to disobedience to a lawful command under section 12(1) of the Armed Forces Act 2006. The Court-Martial imposed 10 months’ Service detention and reduced him from Corporal to Lance Corporal. He appealed by leave, challenging the guideline starting point, the treatment of self-reporting and personal mitigation, totality, and the refusal to suspend the sentence. Post-sentence family emergencies and the effect of detention on his regiment were also relied on. The central issue was whether the overall sentencing package was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

Appeal dismissed. The Court’s function was to determine whether the overall sentencing package was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. It retained responsibility for assessing seriousness, but was required to give appropriate respect to the specialist military expertise of the Court-Martial.

1. Service courts must have regard to the maintenance of military discipline as an additional sentencing purpose. In the operational setting, close to a potentially hostile State, compliance with personal electronic device restrictions and the protection of operational security were critical. The offence was easy to commit, might never have been detected without the appellant’s confession, and required a deterrent response.
2. The offence-specific Service framework properly placed the offending in culpability category A and harm category 1. The category A1 classification and 12-month imprisonment starting point were justified. The 25 per cent increase when substituting Service detention produced 15 months, which was then reduced by one-third for the early guilty plea. The decision not to dismiss the appellant, and to reduce him by only one rank, adequately reflected his mitigation.
3. Self-reporting, personal health, family circumstances and the impact on dependants were relevant mitigating matters. The Court considered the reliance on R v Hill (Damian Derek) [2003] EWCA Crim 879, but the need for discipline and deterrence meant that those matters did not require a further reduction or suspension where the package had properly taken them into account.
4. Later events may be considered where they demonstrate that a foreseeable risk identified at sentence has materialised. Rule 33 gave the Commandant of the Military Corrective Training Centre a discretionary power to allow compassionate release. Its existence, and its actual exercise in this case, were relevant to the sentence, but the Court could not direct the Commandant to exercise that power.

The Court identified no error of principle or manifest excess. No adjustment was made to the sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), Court-Martial Appeal Court — On 18 August 2026, the Court dismissed the sentence appeal. [2026] EWCA Crim 1228
• Court-Martial at Catterick — The appellant pleaded guilty on 3 July 2026 and was sentenced on 30 July 2026 to 10 months’ Service detention and reduction from Corporal to Lance Corporal.