Nathan Allen Pleace [2019] EWCA Crim 1382
Summary
**Nathan Allen Pleace** [2019] EWCA Crim 1382 concerned a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence following conviction for violent disorder arising from football-related violence in Cardiff.
The applicant, Nathan Allen Pleace, was convicted on 5 October 2018 at Cardiff Crown Court before His Honour Judge Bidder QC and a jury of violent disorder contrary to section 2(1) of the Public Order Act 1986. On 14 December 2018 he was sentenced to two years and nine months’ imprisonment. The single judge refused leave to appeal and the matter came before the full court.
On 12 August 2017 a serious episode of public disorder occurred outside The Cornwall public house, located in a residential area near Cardiff City football stadium. After a match between Cardiff City and Aston Villa, at approximately 6.45 pm, around 15 Aston Villa supporters who had been drinking heavily arrived in a hired minibus. A number of Cardiff City supporters were inside and outside the public house, along with women, elderly people and children. The Aston Villa group alighted and headed towards The Cornwall. What followed was captured on CCTV. A serious violent incident ensued in which bottles, cans and glasses were used as weapons and at least three men were punched and kicked whilst on the floor. The disorder moved to the side entrance of The Cornwall where the applicant had been standing. He threw a bottle towards the Aston Villa group before going back inside. Some of the Aston Villa group attempted to enter the public house. Darren Simms, one of the Aston Villa supporters, stepped through the side entrance and began to throw punches. The applicant grabbed an item from the bar and threw it. Simms was initially confronted by one person inside before being physically attacked by the applicant and another. The applicant kicked out at Simms whilst he was on the floor and then followed him into the foyer and threw a punch in his direction. The applicant went back inside, collected a chair and took it towards the front entrance. Whilst some of the Aston Villa group returned to the bus, two from inside The Cornwall went back outside. One put his fists up in a threatening manner towards the Aston Villa group and a second confrontation occurred outside which appeared to involve the applicant. Once the violence dissipated the Aston Villa group returned to the bus. The applicant was arrested on 7 November 2017 and gave no comment replies to all questions.
Judge Bidder QC had presided over two separate trials arising from the same incident and at various stages some offenders had entered guilty pleas. In passing sentence on a number of offenders including the applicant, the judge reached the conclusion that the Cardiff City supporters had not planned or wanted any trouble. He was sure that trouble had been planned by the Aston Villa supporters on the bus, which had diverted from its expected route. Those on the bus wanted to fight Cardiff City supporters and were prepared to invade the public house to do so. The judge was fortunate that serious injury was not caused. Whilst the judge found that it was not possible to make very fine gradations of culpability, he carefully categorised those whom he had to sentence into three groups. Two of the Aston Villa supporters and the applicant were concluded to be responsible for the most serious violence and were the most culpable. The judge found that the applicant had been inside the public house but had not started the violence. Having seen the Aston Villa group arrive from a side door, the applicant threw a bottle towards them which had inflamed the situation. He went inside to find more objects and threw a glass at the Aston Villa group. When Darren Simms went to the ground the applicant kicked him in the head and as Simms went to leave the applicant punched him hard to the back of the head. The judge concluded that the applicant relished his involvement.
The applicant was 30 and had 11 convictions, many of which involved public disorder and three of which involved football disorder. In 2011 he was convicted of violent disorder for which he received a custodial sentence and was made subject to a Football Banning Order which he subsequently breached. The two other offenders within the first group were Brett Clarke and Ryan White, both Aston Villa supporters. Clarke, found to have been the most violent, was 40 with no relevant convictions and was convicted after a trial. He was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. White was entitled to full credit for his guilty plea entered in April 2018 and was sentenced to two years. In sentencing the applicant, the judge took into account the fact that he had not been looking for trouble that day and the impact of his service as a member of the Parachute Regiment. In arriving at the term of two years and nine months’ imprisonment the judge allowed a further reduction in his sentence compared with what he described as the starting points for Clarke and White.
Mr Christopher Rees, who represented the applicant, did not argue that the judge was wrong to place the applicant into the first category in terms of the amount of violence used. The sole ground of appeal was whether the discount applied for the applicant’s personal mitigation was insufficient to the extent that it yielded a sentence which was manifestly excessive. The applicant had joined the Parachute Regiment in 2004 and was deployed to Afghanistan in 2008. After a total of seven years’ service he was dishonourably discharged. The judge was supplied with a battery of references from HM Forces, employers and the applicant himself. The applicant indicated in his letter to the judge that as a paratrooper one was expected to be mentally prepared and not show any weakness, and that this mentality and his pride had prevented him from seeking the help he had needed. He expressed regret for his offending. After his time as a soldier the applicant went on to commit violent disorder in February 2010, connected to a sporting event, for which he received a 12 month sentence on a guilty plea at Isleworth Crown Court in February 2011. The Football Banning Order imposed on sentence was breached in 2014 and the applicant was fined. During the period between committing the second violent disorder in August 2017 and his trial, he was assessed in February 2018 by a veterans’ therapist and put on a waiting list for trauma-based therapy. Details of the provisional diagnosis of PTSD and the broad proposals for ongoing treatment were set out in reports which were before the sentencing judge.
The Recorder of Northampton, giving the judgment of the court, held that it was quite correct for the judge to conclude that the applicant’s record of service balanced out his previous bad character for public order offences. The court was also of the view that it was the existence of PTSD as opposed to a working diagnosis thereof which could provide personal mitigation. The court was cognisant of the fact that Judge Bidder QC had conducted the trial and was best placed to form his own view of the character and attitude of the applicant from this as well as from the documents supplied for the purposes of sentence. The choice of any discount which he may have decided to allow for personal mitigation was entirely within his discretion and the Court of Appeal would always hesitate before interfering with such decisions. The court concluded that the judge did not err. In short, the sentence was not manifestly excessive and the renewed application was dismissed.
The applicant, Nathan Allen Pleace, was convicted on 5 October 2018 at Cardiff Crown Court before His Honour Judge Bidder QC and a jury of violent disorder contrary to section 2(1) of the Public Order Act 1986. On 14 December 2018 he was sentenced to two years and nine months’ imprisonment. The single judge refused leave to appeal and the matter came before the full court.
On 12 August 2017 a serious episode of public disorder occurred outside The Cornwall public house, located in a residential area near Cardiff City football stadium. After a match between Cardiff City and Aston Villa, at approximately 6.45 pm, around 15 Aston Villa supporters who had been drinking heavily arrived in a hired minibus. A number of Cardiff City supporters were inside and outside the public house, along with women, elderly people and children. The Aston Villa group alighted and headed towards The Cornwall. What followed was captured on CCTV. A serious violent incident ensued in which bottles, cans and glasses were used as weapons and at least three men were punched and kicked whilst on the floor. The disorder moved to the side entrance of The Cornwall where the applicant had been standing. He threw a bottle towards the Aston Villa group before going back inside. Some of the Aston Villa group attempted to enter the public house. Darren Simms, one of the Aston Villa supporters, stepped through the side entrance and began to throw punches. The applicant grabbed an item from the bar and threw it. Simms was initially confronted by one person inside before being physically attacked by the applicant and another. The applicant kicked out at Simms whilst he was on the floor and then followed him into the foyer and threw a punch in his direction. The applicant went back inside, collected a chair and took it towards the front entrance. Whilst some of the Aston Villa group returned to the bus, two from inside The Cornwall went back outside. One put his fists up in a threatening manner towards the Aston Villa group and a second confrontation occurred outside which appeared to involve the applicant. Once the violence dissipated the Aston Villa group returned to the bus. The applicant was arrested on 7 November 2017 and gave no comment replies to all questions.
Judge Bidder QC had presided over two separate trials arising from the same incident and at various stages some offenders had entered guilty pleas. In passing sentence on a number of offenders including the applicant, the judge reached the conclusion that the Cardiff City supporters had not planned or wanted any trouble. He was sure that trouble had been planned by the Aston Villa supporters on the bus, which had diverted from its expected route. Those on the bus wanted to fight Cardiff City supporters and were prepared to invade the public house to do so. The judge was fortunate that serious injury was not caused. Whilst the judge found that it was not possible to make very fine gradations of culpability, he carefully categorised those whom he had to sentence into three groups. Two of the Aston Villa supporters and the applicant were concluded to be responsible for the most serious violence and were the most culpable. The judge found that the applicant had been inside the public house but had not started the violence. Having seen the Aston Villa group arrive from a side door, the applicant threw a bottle towards them which had inflamed the situation. He went inside to find more objects and threw a glass at the Aston Villa group. When Darren Simms went to the ground the applicant kicked him in the head and as Simms went to leave the applicant punched him hard to the back of the head. The judge concluded that the applicant relished his involvement.
The applicant was 30 and had 11 convictions, many of which involved public disorder and three of which involved football disorder. In 2011 he was convicted of violent disorder for which he received a custodial sentence and was made subject to a Football Banning Order which he subsequently breached. The two other offenders within the first group were Brett Clarke and Ryan White, both Aston Villa supporters. Clarke, found to have been the most violent, was 40 with no relevant convictions and was convicted after a trial. He was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. White was entitled to full credit for his guilty plea entered in April 2018 and was sentenced to two years. In sentencing the applicant, the judge took into account the fact that he had not been looking for trouble that day and the impact of his service as a member of the Parachute Regiment. In arriving at the term of two years and nine months’ imprisonment the judge allowed a further reduction in his sentence compared with what he described as the starting points for Clarke and White.
Mr Christopher Rees, who represented the applicant, did not argue that the judge was wrong to place the applicant into the first category in terms of the amount of violence used. The sole ground of appeal was whether the discount applied for the applicant’s personal mitigation was insufficient to the extent that it yielded a sentence which was manifestly excessive. The applicant had joined the Parachute Regiment in 2004 and was deployed to Afghanistan in 2008. After a total of seven years’ service he was dishonourably discharged. The judge was supplied with a battery of references from HM Forces, employers and the applicant himself. The applicant indicated in his letter to the judge that as a paratrooper one was expected to be mentally prepared and not show any weakness, and that this mentality and his pride had prevented him from seeking the help he had needed. He expressed regret for his offending. After his time as a soldier the applicant went on to commit violent disorder in February 2010, connected to a sporting event, for which he received a 12 month sentence on a guilty plea at Isleworth Crown Court in February 2011. The Football Banning Order imposed on sentence was breached in 2014 and the applicant was fined. During the period between committing the second violent disorder in August 2017 and his trial, he was assessed in February 2018 by a veterans’ therapist and put on a waiting list for trauma-based therapy. Details of the provisional diagnosis of PTSD and the broad proposals for ongoing treatment were set out in reports which were before the sentencing judge.
The Recorder of Northampton, giving the judgment of the court, held that it was quite correct for the judge to conclude that the applicant’s record of service balanced out his previous bad character for public order offences. The court was also of the view that it was the existence of PTSD as opposed to a working diagnosis thereof which could provide personal mitigation. The court was cognisant of the fact that Judge Bidder QC had conducted the trial and was best placed to form his own view of the character and attitude of the applicant from this as well as from the documents supplied for the purposes of sentence. The choice of any discount which he may have decided to allow for personal mitigation was entirely within his discretion and the Court of Appeal would always hesitate before interfering with such decisions. The court concluded that the judge did not err. In short, the sentence was not manifestly excessive and the renewed application was dismissed.
The applicant was convicted of violent disorder and sentenced to 2 years and 9 months’ imprisonment. The incident involved a group of Aston Villa supporters going to a pub where there were Cardiff City fans and a serious violent incident occurred. The applicant threw a bottle toward the Aston Villa fans before going back inside the pub, the group attempted to get in the pub, throwing punches. The applicant threw an item from the bar and confronted then attacked one of the rival fans, kicking out at him on the floor.
The judge reached the conclusion that the Cardiff City fans had not wanted or planned any trouble but when the rival fans did arrive the applicant inflamed the situation and was found to have been responsible for the most serious violence and the most culpable along with two rival fans.
The short point for the appeal was whether the discount for personal mitigation was insufficient to the extent that it yielded a sentence which was manifestly excessive. The applicant had previous convictions for disorder and had been in the parachute regiment, serving in Afghanistan. He had been assessed by a veteran’s therapist and put on a waiting list for trauma-based therapy, details of a provisional diagnosis of PTSD and broad proposals for ongoing treatment were set out in reports.
Held: it was quite correct for the judge to conclude the applicant’s service record balanced out his previous bad character for public order offences. It is the existence of PTSD as opposed to a working diagnosis which can provide personal mitigation. The judge did not err. The application was dismissed.