Fredrick Owusu-Acheampong [2019] EWCA Crim 1503

Fredrick Owusu-Acheampong [2019] EWCA Crim 1503 concerned an appeal by leave of the single judge against a sentence of thirteen and a half months’ imprisonment imposed by the Crown Court at Woolwich for an offence of having a bladed article. The Court of Appeal, comprising Lord Justice Holroyde, Mr Justice Goss and Mr Justice Knowles, dismissed the appeal.

Mr Owusu-Acheampong pleaded guilty on 27 March 2019 when the case was listed for trial to possessing a bladed article on 25 April 2019. He had also been committed to the Crown Court for sentence for possession of cannabis following a guilty plea in the magistrates’ court on 29 October 2018, for which no separate penalty was imposed. The committal had been made mistakenly under section 6 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 rather than section 4, but following R v Luff [2013] EWCA Crim 1958 the validity of the committal was unaffected and the Court treated it as having been under section 4.

At 3.38 am on 14 October 2018 the appellant was captured on CCTV in Croydon High Street carrying a large eight-inch black-handled kitchen knife. Police officers pursued him. He was intoxicated and passed through a large group of people on the pavement outside a nightclub with the knife clearly visible in his left hand. Many in the street saw the knife and watched him, though none reacted in an extreme way. He was looking around at individuals in the crowd, inferentially searching for someone. He then crossed the road, dropping the knife before retrieving it and causing traffic to avoid him. Aware of the police, he went down an alley and disposed of the knife down a drain. Officers were waiting for him at the end of the alley and upon arrest a small quantity of cannabis was found in his possession.

The appellant was thirty years old when sentenced. He was single, studying for a degree in business management and an NVQ qualification to become a qualified electrician, and held a part-time job at Waitrose. He had no relevant previous convictions. The pre-sentence report revealed that he had gone out from his hotel armed with the knife to look for acquaintances who had attacked him a short time earlier and bruised his ego. He had consumed alcohol. He appeared remorseful to the report writer and recognised he had been stupid. He was assessed as presenting a medium risk of reconviction and a medium risk of harm to the public. The report proposed a twelve-month community order with unpaid work and a rehabilitation activity requirement of up to thirty days.

The sentencing judge determined the offence fell within category 1A of the relevant guideline by reason of the appellant’s possession of a bladed article in a public place and the risk of very serious disorder. The appellant had returned to his hotel deliberately to arm himself in order to search out his assailant and walked towards and through a group of people in the street. The starting point was therefore eighteen months’ custody and the sentencing range was one year to two and a half years’ custody. Aggravating factors were that he committed the offence whilst under the influence of alcohol and attempted to dispose of evidence. Factors reducing seriousness were his lack of relevant previous convictions, his hard work and attempts to better himself, the continuing effect of his father’s death some years earlier and his apparent remorse. The judge observed that the appellant had plenty of time to cool off after the first incident and referred to his deliberately arming himself to retaliate, noting the problem that with a knife available it could be used with serious or fatal consequences in seconds. The offence was so serious that it required a custodial sentence. After trial, balancing the aggravating and mitigating factors and including credit for frank admissions to the probation officer, the appropriate sentence was fifteen months reduced by 10 per cent for his late guilty plea.

Mr Caulfield, on behalf of the appellant, did not challenge the imposition or length of imprisonment but argued that the judge did not give sufficient thought to the relevant sentencing guideline when exercising discretion as to whether to suspend the period of imprisonment. The judge had commented that he could find no reason at all for suspending the sentence. Counsel submitted that if the judge did go through the factors identified in the definitive guideline for the imposition of community and custodial sentences he did not articulate his conclusions.

The Court held that it was implicit in the circumstances of the offence, its commission and the sentencing remarks that the judge concluded the appellant presented a risk to the public and the nature of the offence was such that appropriate punishment could only be achieved by immediate custody. Mr Caulfield referred to factors indicating it may be appropriate to suspend a custodial sentence, namely the realistic prospect of rehabilitation and strong personal mitigation, but the Court was satisfied that the sentencing judge was entitled to conclude that only an immediate custodial sentence was the appropriate penalty having regard to the necessary elements of punishment and deterrence for this kind of offence. The Court observed that knife crimes and their consequences are all too familiar in current times. In short, the appeal against the refusal to suspend the sentence of imprisonment was dismissed.

Luff [2013] EWCA Crim 1958