Ryandeep Singh Sidhu & Others [2019] EWCA Crim 1034; [2019] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 34
Sidhu was convicted of perverting the course of justice and sentenced to 2 years and 6 months imprisonment, Kemp-Francis was similarly convicted and sentenced. Andrew was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 14 years imprisonment.
The three defendants attended a boxing match in the course of which rival supporters became increasingly hostile to each other. After the match a fight broke out where Andrew was rugby tackled to the ground, he was kicked and punched, and he stabbed a male in the stomach and back. He continued to attempt to stab men around him, stabbing one male and then the victim in the neck. The CCTV shows him running to the victim and slashing his throat. Andrew left the scene with Kemp-Francis and approached Sidhu handing him the knife.
Kemp-Francis drove Andrew from Birmingham to where he lived in Derby, Andrew emerged from the car in his underwear and went to his flat emerging fully dressed. From there Andrew took a taxi to the airport where he eventually caught a flight to Barcelona via Amsterdam. He was later extradited. Sidhu said in interview that he left when the disturbance broke out and was approached by two men asking for a lift. He was threatened and a male dropped a knife in his car but that it was not in the car when he drove away.
On behalf of Andrew it was said that the judge erred when he took into account that Andrew had intended to cause serious injury as the jury had rejected the charge of murder.
Held: there was a sound basis for the conclusion of the judge, his categorisation of the applicant’s intent as “to cause serious injury” was based on the “manner” of the applicant in running up behind the victim and “deliberately stabbing him in the neck”. The judge must form his own conclusion applying the criminal standard of proof, although he should not sentence in a manner inconsistent with the jury’s verdict. Based upon the CCTV evidence it seems to defy logic to challenge the judge’s labelling of the conduct as anything other than intent to cause serious injury. He was not confused between murder and manslaughter, but it may have been better had he said the applicant intended to cause serious injury but falling short of that required for murder. The appeal against sentence was allowed only to allow the days on remand pending extradition to be deducted from sentence.
Kemp-Francis and Sidhu appealed against sentence. The former was present when the fatal blow was delivered, he drove Andrew away from the scene knowing he had handed the knife to Sidhu facilitating the arrangements to feel the country and he offered no assistance to the police. Sidhu took the knife, participated in the disposal and lied to the police in interview.
Held: a sentence for perverting the course of justice will always import some degree of deterrence but determination of the proper sentence involves a principled approach, the court should consider the seriousness of the substantive offence, the degree of persistence engaged in by the defendant and the effect on the course of justice. The sentence for Kemp-Francis was perfectly proper. The issue with Sidhu’s sentence is only in respect of there being no material difference with that of Kemp-Francis. There were two evidential differences between the two: their involvement in the incident in question and the inferences that can be drawn as to their knowledge of what happened. The sentence for Sidhu was quashed and substituted for a sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment.