R v Steven Arthur Connolly
[2024] EWCA Crim 31
R v Brandon Rennie
31 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1016
Court of Appeal
A prisoner attacked another with a homemade weapon. The Solicitor General thought the sentence was too light, but the Court of Appeal disagreed. They said the judge who gave the sentence was experienced and made a fair decision, even though the crime was serious.
Key Facts
- •Brandon Rennie (born 31 December 2001) pleaded guilty to wounding with intent (s.18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861) and possessing a bladed article in prison (s.40CA Prison Act 1952).
- •Rennie attacked a fellow inmate at HMP Swinfen Hall with a homemade weapon (razor blades attached to a toothbrush handle), causing two deep cuts requiring 18 stitches.
- •The attack was premeditated; Rennie believed the victim was a paedophile.
- •Rennie has 24 convictions for 53 offences, including violence and weapon possession.
- •He was serving a 5-year 3-month sentence at the time of the offence.
- •The sentencing judge imposed 40 months' imprisonment consecutive to his existing sentence.
- •The Solicitor General referred the sentence under s.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988 as unduly lenient.
Legal Principles
Principles for undue leniency applications under s.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Attorney-General's Reference (Azad) [2021] EWCA Crim 1846
The Court of Appeal's role is not to re-sentence but to determine if the sentence falls outside the reasonable range.
Attorney-General's Reference (No 4 of 1989)
Sentencing guidelines for wounding with intent, considering culpability and harm categories.
Sentencing Council Definitive Guideline
Considerations regarding the use of highly dangerous weapons in sentencing.
Lawrence [2022] EWCA Crim 567
Considerations regarding the assessment of culpability and harm in sentencing.
O’Bryan [2021] EWCA Crim 1472
Outcomes
The application for leave to refer the sentence was refused.
The Court of Appeal found that while the offending was serious, the sentence, although potentially merciful, was not unduly lenient. The judge's assessment of culpability and harm was within the reasonable range, and the Court declined to substitute its judgment for that of the experienced sentencing judge.