R v Luke Matthews
[2024] EWCA Crim 151
R v Matthew McKennon
16 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 829
Court of Appeal
A man was sentenced to 22 years in prison for violent crimes involving drive-by shootings. He appealed, arguing the sentence was too long, but the court said the sentence was fair given the seriousness of his crimes and his history. An extra court fee was also wrongly added and removed.
Key Facts
- •Matthew McKennon (25) pleaded guilty to seven serious offences: two counts of conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm with intent, one count of causing grievous bodily harm with intent, three counts of arson, and one count of possessing a firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence.
- •Offences involved organised drive-by shootings on three separate occasions, resulting in serious injury to one victim (Jerwayne Grant).
- •McKennon's role varied across the offences; he was directly involved in the third shooting, present in the car but not holding the firearm, and involved in the aftermath of the others.
- •McKennon had 12 previous convictions for 26 offences.
- •Sentenced to an extended determinate sentence of 22 years (18 years custodial, 4 years extended licence).
- •Appeal focused on the length of the custodial term.
Legal Principles
Totality principle in sentencing: ensuring the overall sentence is just and proportionate when multiple offences are involved.
Case law and sentencing guidelines
Dangerousness under the statutory definition, justifying an extended determinate sentence for public protection.
Statutory definition (not specified in document)
Sentencing Guidelines for Causing Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent and Possession of a Firearm with Intent.
Sentencing Guidelines
Section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act: limits the court's power to impose surcharges.
R v Jones [2018] EWCA Crim 2994
Outcomes
Appeal refused.
The court found no reasonable grounds to challenge the sentence. The judge's sentencing approach was deemed appropriate, considering the totality of the offences, the gravity of the crimes, and the applicant's criminal history. The court rejected the appellant's interpretation of the sentencing remarks and basis of plea.
Surcharge order of £190 removed.
The surcharge was not specifically imposed during the sentencing hearing and the court lacked the power to impose it.