Mane, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 754 (18 June 2024)

Mane, R. v [2024] EWCA Crim 754 (18 June 2024)

The sentencing judge was entitled to categorise the offence as between culpability A and B given the use and nature of the screwdriver as a weapon; the starting point and reductions for mitigation were within the guideline range; there was no error of principle or manifest excess, and the exceptional family circumstances did not require suspension of the custodial sentence.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Crim 754
Parties
Respondent: Rex; Applicant: Arnole Mane
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Wounding With Intent, Offensive Weapons, Dangerous Driving, Mitigation, Suspended Sentences
Criminal Law Sentencing Wounding With Intent Offensive Weapons Dangerous Driving Mitigation Suspended Sentences

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Respondent

Arnole Mane

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence of 2 years and 4 months' imprisonment for wounding with intent was manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge erred in categorising the offence between culpability A and B under the Sentencing Guidelines
  3. 3 Whether exceptional personal mitigation justified suspension of the custodial sentence

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge was entitled to categorise the offence as between culpability A and B given the use and nature of the screwdriver as a weapon; the starting point and reductions for mitigation were within the guideline range; there was no error of principle or manifest excess, and the exceptional family circumstances did not require suspension of the custodial sentence.

Court Disposition

application for leave to appeal refused