The Court of Appeal has increased a man’s sentence for manslaughter from five years to six and a half years, suspending the final three years on conditions. It found that the original sentence, which suspended half the term, was unduly lenient.
The court delivered its judgment on 21 December 2017 in an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions to review the sentence under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. It quashed the Central Criminal Court sentence and imposed a new one.
The respondent had pleaded guilty to manslaughter after originally being charged with murder. His plea was accepted by the prosecution. The Central Criminal Court convicted him on 20 June 2016 and sentenced him on 24 October 2016 to five years’ imprisonment, with the final two and a half years suspended on conditions.
The Court of Appeal said the respondent went to the deceased’s home on Christmas Eve 2013 after sending menacing messages and trying unsuccessfully to call him. He had brought a knife. The deceased suffered a leg wound during a struggle; a lacerated varicose vein caused severe bleeding and death. The deceased had also punched and kicked the respondent, who was found outside the house unconscious or semi-conscious, with a cut to his hand.
The respondent had said the knife was for self-defence and that the stabbing was unintentional. The Court of Appeal noted that the wound was superficial and would not normally have been expected to cause excessive bleeding or death. It said the circumstances left open the possibility that the wound was inflicted during a struggle without an intention to injure, or that the respondent intended only a relatively minor wound.
However, the court considered it important that the respondent brought a knife to the home. Damage to the front door suggested he was holding it when the deceased opened the door, and messages sent before he arrived showed he was angry and seeking a confrontation. The court also noted the family’s devastating loss.
In setting the new term, the court took account of the guilty plea, the respondent’s lack of relevant previous convictions and his caring role for his partner and her daughter, both of whom had significant medical needs. It said those mitigating circumstances supported a significant suspended portion, but did not justify the original sentence. The final three years of the six-and-a-half-year sentence were suspended on conditions.