Richard Bray [2019] EWCA Crim 1492

Richard Bray v Regina [2019] EWCA Crim 1492 concerned a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence which was refused by the Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Males, Mr Justice Jay and Mr Justice Edis).

On 18 March 2019 at the Crown Court at York Mr Bray had been sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment for having an offensive weapon contrary to section 1(1) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. The suspended sentence of eight weeks’ imprisonment imposed on 6 February 2019 was activated in full and ordered to run consecutively, resulting in a total sentence of 23 months’ imprisonment. The single judge had refused leave to appeal.

The applicant had been in possession of a Swiss army knife for use as a weapon whilst on a train. Staff observed the knife and called the police, who arrested him. Following his arrest Mr Bray made various threatening remarks to the police, including that he had intended to use the knife to stab two people to death.

The sentencing judge had noted Mr Bray’s very extensive criminal record. The offence had been committed only weeks after a suspended sentence had been imposed for another offence of making threats to people in a public place. The judge gave 25 per cent credit for the guilty plea.

The grounds of appeal contended that the sentence of 21 months did not take into account that no direct threat was made to any person and that the judge had erred in failing to have regard to the guidelines. It was also argued that the judge had insufficient regard to the personal mitigation advanced on behalf of the applicant.

The single judge had observed that the judge was entitled, bearing in mind the circumstances and previous convictions, to conclude that the case fell at the top of the category 1A range before credit for plea. The single judge stated that it was not arguable that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal agreed. Mr Justice Edis noted that the top of the relevant category range in the guideline was 30 months. The judge had imposed a sentence of 28 months before plea discount, which was therefore within the appropriate guideline range. It was impossible to say that he did not have regard to the guidelines since he followed them. The court further observed that whilst the judge did not refer to any matters of personal mitigation, neither did the grounds of appeal identify any such matters. In truth there were none, and the judge’s treatment of personal mitigation was therefore entirely correct.

In short, the application was refused, the sentence being properly within the guideline range and no viable ground of appeal having been established.