R v Manjit Singh

In assessing dangerousness under section 308 of the Sentencing Act 2020, a trial judge’s assessment attracts significant weight, but the appellate court may intervene where insufficient weight has been given to unusual and extreme circumstances, previous exemplary character, and isolated, out-of-character offending. An actuarial risk score or defects in a pre-sentence report do not displace the judge’s independent assessment. In sentencing a repeated knife attack, the number and nature of wounds may demonstrate persistence and a high risk of serious injury. Acquittals of co-defendants tried as secondary parties do not establish self-defence for the appellant. A contentious factual matter relied on at sentence should be raised with counsel, although an omission will not necessarily affect the outcome if the matter is immaterial.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter at the Crown Court at Southwark and acquitted of murder. He received an extended sentence of 18 years under section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020, comprising 14 years’ custody and a four-year extended licence period.

He appealed against the finding of dangerousness and the resulting extended sentence. He also sought to renew an application concerning the 14-year custodial term. The central issues were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, whether the evidence established a significant risk to the public, and whether the sentencing judge had fairly relied on disputed evidence concerning injuries to another person.

Disposition

The application concerning the 14-year custodial term was not properly renewed and had automatically lapsed. The court nevertheless heard counsel and refused leave on the merits. The appeal against the finding of dangerousness was allowed. The finding and the extended sentence were quashed, and a determinate sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment was substituted.

1. Custodial sentence. The sentencing judge was entitled to place the offence in category A under the applicable guideline. The knife was a dangerous weapon, the appellant intended to cause harm falling just short of serious bodily harm, and the risk of death or really serious injury ought to have been obvious. The number of wounds demonstrated the nature and persistence of the assault. It did not establish self-defence or absence of intent. Acquittals of co-defendants were irrelevant because they were tried as secondary parties on different issues. After substantial mitigation had been allowed, the custodial term was not manifestly excessive.
2. Dangerousness. The trial judge had heard all the evidence and his assessment deserved significant weight. However, the Court of Appeal could intervene where the assessment failed to give sufficient weight to unusual and extreme circumstances. The judge was entitled to make his own assessment and was not bound by the low actuarial risk score or flaws in the pre-sentence report, provided he had not been misled.
3. The appellant’s decision to arm himself and attack was properly treated as aggressive conduct. Nevertheless, the court considered it important that the offence arose from extreme threats to the family, a traumatic background, an ineffective police response, and circumstances which caused a previously exemplary young man to act wholly out of character. The judge had not given those matters sufficient weight. The dangerousness finding therefore could not stand.
4. The judge was entitled to consider whether the appellant had caused injuries to another person by reference to the CCTV and injury evidence, and that conclusion was not inconsistent with the jury’s verdict. However, the judge should have given counsel an opportunity to address the contentious issue before relying on it. The matter was not central to the dangerousness assessment and did not form the basis of the court’s decision.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2026] EWCA Crim 205, the court refused leave concerning the custodial term, allowed the appeal against dangerousness, quashed the extended sentence and substituted a determinate sentence of 14 years.
• Crown Court at Southwark: The appellant was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to an extended sentence of 18 years, comprising 14 years’ custody and a four-year extended licence period.