Sentencing guidelines - Personal Mitigating Circumstances – Exceptional Circumstances

24 results

22 November 2024

King v Thomasena Byrne

GENERAL

1. Deterrence means discouraging the offender before the court, and others, from committing offences of the kind in question and/or more generally: paras [8] – [9]

2. Every sentence has an inbuilt element of deterrence (the concept of “general deterrence”): paras [8] – [9] & [11]

3. In some cases the sentencing court may decide that deterrence of the offender and/or the public, in the sense explained in [1] above, requires particular emphasis, the consequence being that a punishment more punitive than would otherwise be merited may follow (the concept of “particular deterrence” / an “expressly deterrent sentence”): paras [11] – [13]

4. In cases belonging to the latter category, adherence to the guidance in QWL paras [102] – [103] is essential: para [14]

5. Where sentencing guidelines decisions of the NICOA incorporate an element of specific (as distinct from general) deterrence, the sentencing court must avoid double counting.

6. “ … an offender’s personal circumstances will rarely qualify to be accorded much weight, particularly in a context where a deterrent sentence is required.” (para [18] quoting QWL para [98] )

THIS CASE

7. In the fact specific context of this case. First, per para [21]

“ … the judge’s approach to the issue of personal mitigation was in substance one of applying an absolute rule and, hence, not compatible with the principles expounded above, in a context of having erroneously declared this to be a case requiring deterrence, without more. The judge should have approached the issue of personal mitigation more flexibly and, having done so, explained the weight which he had determined to allocate to it. The impugned sentencing decision is not to this effect. Furthermore, the judge’s decision is not in accordance with the QWL guidance at paras [102]–[103].”
This passage identifies two material judicial errors. The first error entailed a judicial failure to recognise that the general rule in play viz the need for a deterrent sentence normally entails attributing little weight to personal mitigation factors is not absolute in nature.

8. Second, per para [22]: The COA was influenced by the newly admitted evidence.

[2024] NICA 75

21 October 2024

The King v John Paul Whitla

In this judgment the Court of Appeal refreshes the categories in respect of sentencing for murder as previously outlined in R v McCandless [2004] NICA 1 to reflect the complexion of cases which have come before the courts in NI over the last 20 years (see paras [40] – [45]).

DPP reference - murder - false imprisonment - common assault - trespass with intent to commit a sexual offence - multiple stabbings - whether sentence unduly lenient - whether starting point for minimum tariff too low - whether judge wrong not to find pre-planning or premeditation - flaws in prosecution approach not arguing pre-planning element with necessary vigour led judge into error – multiple stabbing case such as this required an uplift on the starting point selected - sentence unduly lenient - leave granted – reference allowed - sentence quashed and replaced with revised minimum tariff of 19 years

[2024] NICA 65 Keegan LCJ

03 May 2024

The King v Stephen McKinney

This judgment provides guidance to sentencers dealing with murder cases in a domestic context where coercive and controlling behaviour is established. (See in particular paragraphs [2], [34], [52] and [66]).

Application for leave to appeal a mandatory life sentence with a minimum tariff of 20 years – murder of appellant’s wife – whether tariff manifestly excessive – court reiterated the position that pre-existing coercive and controlling behaviour is an aggravating factor that will result in higher sentences when domestic murders of this kind occur - sentences of 20 years and possibly more will be upheld – appeal dismissed

[2024] NICA 35 Keegan LCJ

02 February 2024

The King v Fionnghuale Mary Theresa Dympha Marie Nuala Perry

The Court of Appeal sets out best sentencing practice in terrorism cases with reference to the new statutory sentencing regime at paragraphs [33] – [36].

Appeal against a sentence of four years imprisonment and 12 month licence period – collecting or making a record of information likely to be useful to a terrorist – whether sentence manifestly excessive – whether the sentence was a product of an error of law relating to the new sentencing regime – article 7 ECHR – new approach applied by sentencing judge – one year licence period applied by operation of law rather than any judicial decision or act – no error of law – court reemphasised where a deterrent sentence is required personal mitigation carries little weight – appeal dismissed

[2024] NICA 11 McCloskey LJ

10 November 2023

The King v Francis Devlin

Renewed application for leave to appeal a sentence of four years’ imprisonment – four counts of conspiracy to cheat the public revenue – sole issue of impact of imprisonment on applicant’s son – whether sentence should be suspended – Court of Appeal approved the application of the guidance in R v Petherick [2012] EWCA Crim 2214 in NI – circumstances not so exceptional to merit a suspension – public interest in deterrence – appeal dismissed

[2023] NICA 71 Keegan LCJ

05 April 2023

King v Sharyar Ali

This judgment serves as a guideline for appropriate sentencing in cases involving the murder of a young child.

DPP reference – whether sentence unduly lenient – murder of an 11 month old child – tariff of 13 years following a “Rooney” indication and after a guilty plea – child subjected to forceful assault – severe trauma to head – rib fractures – multiple blunt blows – whether judge afforded sufficient weight to aggravating factors – whether judge afforded too much weight to mitigating factors – whether reduction for guilty plea was too generous – leave granted – reference allowed – sentence quashed and replaced with a revised tariff of 16 years.

[2023] NICA 20 Keegan LCJ

24 February 2023

King v Qing Wen Lin, Long Quang Lin Lin Zheng, Zhu Lin & Yang Wu Chen

Renewed application for leave to appeal sentence – money laundering operation – Proceeds of Crime Act 2022 – whether sentences manifestly excessive – applications to receive new material granted – principle of mercy applied to two mothers - Article 8 ECHR – the offender’s personal circumstances - judge erred in confining exceptional circumstances to the offending itself - disparity in sentencing – deterrent sentences – culpability – the aggravating factors contained highly prejudicial assertions not agreed or proven – prosecution portrayal of the roles and knowledge attributed to the appellants was inconsistent - roles/rankings which the judge attributed to certain appellants were neither agreed nor proven - leave granted – appeals allowed - sentences reduced.

Guidance in relation to the following sentencing principles can be found at paragraphs [86] – [110] - mercy in sentencing, Article 8 ECHR to include reference to R v Petherick [2013] 1 WLR 1102, exceptional circumstances, the offender’s personal circumstances, disparity in sentencing, deterrent sentences and culpability.

[2023] NICA 11 McCloskey LJ

20 January 2023

King v William Hutchison

This judgment serves as a guide for sentencing in murder cases which involve domestic violence and are characterised by a prior, prolonged history of domestic violence.

This judgment serves as a guide for sentencing in murder cases which involve domestic violence and are characterised by a prior, prolonged history of domestic violence.

Renewed application for leave to appeal a 21 year minimum term imposed in connection with a mandatory life sentence following a late plea to murder – femicide case involving significant domestic violence – whether the judge erred in law when determining the appropriate sentence prior to adjustment for the plea – whether the judge failed to take into account certain factors as mitigation and made insufficient allowance for a guilty plea – court held judge did not fall into error of double counting – the applicant had a history of violence against previous partners – deliberately chose not to summon medical assistance – sentence transparent – no mitigation save for reduction for plea – no basis to interfere with the level of reduction granted – no remorse – leave refused – appeal dismissed.

[2023] NICA 3 Keegan LCJ

01 June 2022

Queen v Christopher Robinson

Appeal against sentence – convicted of murder of a senior prison officer and causing an explosion with intent to endanger life – joint enterprise – mandatory life sentence with 22 year minimum term prior to release at first instance – appeal against minimum tariff of 22 years – application to extend time – whether trial judge was wrong to conclude that there was nothing by way of personal mitigation giving rise to a reduction in sentence - R v McCandless [2004] NICA 1 confirmed as leading authority on sentencing in murder cases – high culpability – high harm – case fell within the very serious category – planned – politically motivated – use of explosive device a highly aggravating factor – terrorist crimes involving serving police or prison officers can expect sentences of upwards of 20 years – personal mitigation is likely to be of limited if any value – no merit in appeal - application to extend time refused - appeal dismissed

[2022] NICA 30 Keegan LCJ

17 April 2020

R v Haggarty

Sentencing for multiple terrorist offences, including murder and attempted murder – guilty pleas – offender assisting police pursuant to ss. 73-75 SOCPA 2005 – whether discount appropriate – guidance given on the approach to be taken to ‘the SOCPA discount’.

[2020] NICA 22 Morgan LCJ

06 December 2019

Queen v Daniel Raymond Dunlop

appeal against sentence - supply of a Class A and Class B drugs (cocaine) contrary to section 4(3)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 - substantial criminal record of 61 previous convictions, three relate to possession of drugs (cannabis) - delay - approach adopted and weight accorded by the sentencing judge to the factor of the appellant’s rehabilitation were erroneous in law - appeal allowed

[2019] NICA 72 McCloskey LJ

19 September 2017

Regina v Turner (William) & Turner (James Henry)

Murder x 2 – whether reduction in tariffs for guilty plea appropriate –guidance given on range of appropriate discount and approach to be taken by sentencers.

[2017] NICA 52 Morgan LCJ

25 January 2017

R v Peter Greer

Application to extend time for leave to appeal sentence – murder – 20 year tariff – Plus: 1. attempted murder; 2. possession of shotgun; and, 3. handgun both with intent to endanger life – discretionary life sentences with concurrent tariffs of 20 years’ imprisonment for each offence. Planned professional killing – McCandless reaffirmed – extension of time refused on murder count and tariff on mandatory life sentence left undisturbed – tariffs of 10, 8 & 8 years’ imprisonment respectively substituted in the remaining offences extension of time and leave having been granted on those counts.

[2017] NICA 4 Morgan LCJ

14 October 2014

R v Wootton & McConville

Reference under s. 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 – terrorist murder of police officer life imprisonment for adult offender – application of minimum tariff – 25 years not unduly lenient – detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure for youth offender – minimum term of 14 years unduly lenient – limited mitigation for youth in serious violent offence of this nature – tariff of 18 years substituted.

[2014] NICA 69 Morgan LCJ

23 June 2011