Richard Bray [2019] EWCA Crim 1492

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter and an extended sentence of 24 years, comprising a 21-year custodial term, was imposed.

The appellant and two others attended a flat with the intention of obtaining a mobile phone from the victim. That phone was valuable as it operated as a drugs line. The victim was stabbed once, in sentencing, the judge concluded it was most likely that it was the appellant who stabbed him. It did not matter who was responsible since this was a joint enterprise.

No complaint was made as to the finding of dangerousness, instead that the length was excessive, and the judge erred in treating the offence as a ‘very high culpability’ case.

Held: the issue is whether the judge was justified in saying this case fell in the category that “death was caused in the course of committing … a serious offence in which the offender played more than a minor role.” The judge considered that the appellant was arguably involved in a conspiracy to supply drugs, and so there was a combination of culpability B factors which warranted treating this as a Category A case. The Court did not agree and said he was wrong to approach the case as entailing a killing in the course of a conspiracy to supply drugs.

The judge had described it as being ‘arguable’ that he was so involved. This was not sufficient as any finding that the third of the Category B features is applicable should be to the criminal standard.

There was not a combination of factors demonstrating ‘high culpability’, and it was inappropriate to treat the case as Category A. Nonetheless, there were a number of features justifying it being at the very top end of Category B.

The sentence was quashed and substituted for it an extended sentence of 20 years comprising a custodial term of 17 years.