Quartey [2019] EWCA Crim 374

Regina v Neron Quartey [2019] EWCA Crim 374 concerned an appeal against sentence by a man convicted of murder, which the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) allowed in part, reducing the minimum term from 26 to 24 years.

Mr Quartey had been convicted of murder following a trial at the Central Criminal Court before Her Honour Judge Molyneux and a jury. On 16 August 2018, when he was 21 years old, he was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 26 years (less 186 days spent on remand). He had been 20 at the time of the offence on 3 February 2018. His victim was Kwabena Nelson.

On 2 February 2018 Mr Quartey spent the day in regular telephone communication with two friends, both drug dealers. Shortly before 01:30 he was driving a car along Kemble Road with at least three, perhaps as many as four or five, others in the car. At least one, and probably two, of his earlier telephone contacts were in the vehicle. As a car driven by Mr Nelson turned into the road, Mr Quartey deliberately turned his car to the right and caused a collision with Mr Nelson. The impact was substantial and Mr Nelson could not drive on. Mr Quartey and his companions got out, at least two of them armed with knives. Eyewitnesses described all of them holding what appeared to be bars or metal objects. Mr Quartey himself was seen with something in his right hand that went beyond the end of his hand, described as resembling a baseball bat but of a slightly different shape. The group stood around the car for a few seconds, chanting aggressively. They then approached Mr Nelson’s car, surrounded it, and began shouting and banging on the bonnet, striking it with their weapons. The passenger door was opened and the attack on Mr Nelson began whilst he was still inside. He was dragged out and tried to run away. He fell to the ground and was surrounded. He screamed and cried for help. The group swung down towards him with their weapons. An eyewitness described the violence as inhumane, savage, and animalistic. Mr Nelson curled into a ball and raised his hands to protect himself. The incident lasted between 45 seconds and a minute. Mr Nelson suffered fourteen incised wounds, six of which were stab wounds, as well as extensive bruising and defensive injuries. After the attack the group ran away, leaving Mr Nelson in the street. Despite managing to knock on a nearby door and telephone a family member, and despite the efforts of emergency services, Mr Nelson died.

The sentencing judge applied a starting point of 25 years under Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, it being common ground that knives had been taken to the scene. She identified substantial aggravating factors, stating that there would be no double counting. The attack had been planned. Mr Nelson was known to Mr Quartey. The appellant had left his mobile phone behind to avoid detection. The collision was deliberate, amounting to an ambush. It was a group attack on an individual in which Mr Quartey played a leading role as the driver of the car that caused the collision. Although there was no evidence that he had struck the fatal blow, it was a brutal attack by a group all armed with weapons. Mr Quartey knew others were using knives. He was an enthusiastic participant who ignored Mr Nelson’s screams for help and then left him to die in the street. The judge found that Mr Quartey intended that Mr Nelson should die. The judge took account of Mr Quartey’s age, noting that she was mindful of the need to consider age and maturity when applying the guidelines and assessing culpability, and that this factor served to reduce the minimum term. She considered the decisions in R v Peters [2005] EWCA Crim 605, [2005] 2 Cr App R(S) 101 and R v Matthew [2006] EWCA Crim 2399, [2006] 1 Cr App R(S) 88. The judge noted that Mr Quartey was not unintelligent, having passed GCSEs and completed Level 2 in accounting, but had failed Level 3 and then begun to associate with those who had a negative influence on him. He began offending shortly before his nineteenth birthday with relatively minor offences, but in January 2016, when he was convicted of possessing a knife in a public place, a black hunting-style knife with an 11.5-centimetre serrated blade had been found concealed in his trouser leg. He received a suspended sentence of detention which was later activated upon re-offending.

Miss Khan QC, appearing for Mr Quartey, advanced two grounds of appeal. First, she contended that the judge had treated as an aggravating feature the fact that Mr Quartey intended to kill Mr Nelson, when intention to kill is taken into account in arriving at the starting point under Schedule 21. Secondly, she submitted that whilst the judge recognised that the appellant’s age and youth was a mitigating factor in accordance with Peters, she failed to reflect that factor adequately in arriving at the minimum term. The single judge gave leave on the second ground, which he considered arguable, whilst expressing scepticism about the first ground. He noted that if the second ground succeeded, any reduction would be modest.

The Lord Chief Justice, giving the judgment of the court, rejected the first ground. He held that the judge had not treated intention to kill as an aggravating feature. Such an approach would suggest a lack of familiarity with the basic structure of Schedule 21, which was inconceivable in a Central Criminal Court judge regularly dealing with homicide cases. Miss Khan was correct that the 25-year starting point is arrived at on the premise that there was an intention to kill, and if the facts demonstrated only an intention to cause really serious harm the starting point would be adjusted downward. However, the court considered the argument to be a semantic one. The judge had stated in terms that she would not double count, and it was clear that her observation about intention to kill was simply recording her finding of fact on a matter that had been pressed on behalf of the appellant in written and oral argument. Had the observation been located at the beginning of a separate paragraph rather than at the end of a paragraph dealing with aggravating features, the argument would not run. Like the single judge, the court concluded this ground provided no assistance to Mr Quartey.

On the second ground, the court noted the principle articulated in Peters, quoting paragraph 11 of that judgment, which emphasised that considerations of age and maturity are usually relevant to culpability and seriousness. Although reaching the age of 18 or 21 represents a significant moment, it does not necessarily indicate an individual’s true level of maturity, insight, and understanding. These levels are not suddenly accelerated by an eighteenth or twenty-first birthday. Although the normal starting point is governed by the defendant’s age, the sentencing judge should reflect on and make allowances, as appropriate upwards or downwards, for the level of maturity. The court noted that Matthew and other authorities had repeatedly emphasised that there should be no sudden postponement or acceleration of sentence levels due to age; there are no cliff edges. The court referred to R v Clarke [2018] EWCA Crim 185, which stated that reaching 18 has many legal consequences but does not present a cliff edge for sentencing purposes, that full maturity and all the attributes of adulthood are not magically conferred on young people on their eighteenth birthdays, and that youth and maturity will be factors that inform any sentencing decision even after the eighteenth birthday. Mr Mayo QC for the Crown reminded the court that the judge was in a good position to assess maturity, having heard Mr Quartey give evidence at trial and observed his demeanour.

The court noted that there had been no pre-sentence report dealing with maturity or explaining further the circumstances in which Mr Quartey, conviction free until almost 19, appeared to have gone off the rails. However, the seeds were revealed in the sentencing remarks. All appeared well until Mr Quartey took his GCSEs. Rather than take A-levels he pursued alternative further education, but an exam failure disrupted the path he was travelling. He fell under the influence of malign individuals who had a negative impact upon him. There was a clear indication that this influence had led him into the world of drugs and violence, an all too familiar pattern. The court held that this was indicative of immaturity and a lack of strength to resist peer pressure, representing a difference between the fully mature adult and the developing but still immature late adolescent moving into adulthood.

The court was persuaded that, despite the undoubted aggravating features of this despicable killing, a greater margin was appropriate to reflect Mr Quartey’s age and immaturity. It reduced the minimum term from 26 years to 24 years, giving the same credit for time spent on remand. The court made clear that this meant Mr Quartey would be aged 45 before the Parole Board could sanction his release, if persuaded that the risk allowed it, a very long sentence indeed for a 21-year-old man. In short, the appeal was allowed, the minimum term was quashed, and a minimum term of 24 years was substituted with the appropriate credit as before.

Peters & Ors [2005] EWCA Crim 605
R v Matthew [2006] EWCA Crim 2399; [2006] 1 Cr App R(S) 88
Clarke and Others [2018] EWCA Crim 185; [2018] 1 Cr. App. R. (S) 52