R v Micaiah Marley

A renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence should be refused where the proposed grounds disclose no arguable case that the sentence was manifestly excessive or otherwise wrong in law. A sentencing judge who heard the trial is well placed to assess culpability, and appellate intervention is not justified merely because the offender relies on mitigation or compares his sentence with those of co-defendants whose roles differed. Caring responsibilities may carry limited weight where lengthy imprisonment is inevitable. A substantial delay requires a good explanation before an extension of time is granted.

Following a trial at Cardiff Crown Court, the applicant was convicted of two counts of kidnapping, three counts of false imprisonment and one count of blackmail arising from events in December 2020. On 27 October 2023 he received an extended sentence under section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020, comprising 15 years’ custody and a four-year extended licence period. A five-year serious crime prevention order was later imposed, but was not separately challenged.

The applicant’s application for leave to appeal against sentence, lodged 271 days out of time, was refused by a single judge. He renewed the application, relying on alleged excessiveness, mitigation, disparity with co-defendants, the treatment of earlier convictions and time on remand. The central issues were whether there was an arguable sentencing error and whether the delay should be extended.

1. Renewed application and extension of time. The court independently reviewed the written materials and upheld the single judge’s refusal of leave. The applicant’s submissions disclosed no arguable error capable of showing that the 15-year custodial term was manifestly excessive or otherwise wrong in law. There was no good reason for the significant delay, so the necessary extension of time was also refused.
2. Culpability and mitigation. The applicant had played a leading role in a sophisticated and organised group specialising in kidnapping, extortion and blackmail. The sentencing judge had heard the evidence at trial and was entitled to assess the applicant as a level 1 offender. The judge had considered the applicant’s offending history, medical conditions, age at the time of offending, family circumstances and detailed mitigation bundle. Caring responsibilities could attract only limited weight in circumstances where a lengthy custodial sentence was inevitable. The finding that the applicant was dangerous was not challenged.
3. Disparity. A comparison with co-defendants did not make the sentence manifestly unfair where the applicant’s role and culpability were materially greater. Disparity arguments are difficult to maintain: R v Anandarajah (Jabinthan) [2012] EWCA Crim 1689 at [16]. The applicant had led the organisation and commission of the offences, arranged premises and threatened a victim with weapons and death. The sentence was therefore within the range open to the judge. The court also applied the level 1 categorisation referred to in Stephens [2010] EWCA Crim 911.
4. Procedural applications. The court declined to entertain the applicant’s supplemental submissions as providing any basis for leave, even if the exceptional course of considering them after the single judge’s refusal were adopted. It refused a very late adjournment request because there was no good reason and the request came to the court after the substance of its decision had been announced.

Both applications were refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence, the extension-of-time application and the late adjournment application were refused.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), single judge: Refused leave to appeal, holding that the sentence was not arguably manifestly excessive or otherwise wrong in law.
• Cardiff Crown Court: Following conviction after trial, imposed an extended sentence of 19 years, comprising 15 years’ custody and a four-year extended licence period.