Key Facts
- •Appeals of Nicholas Papworth and Tony Deeprose, concerning the use of a vehicle as a weapon in murder and attempted murder.
- •Papworth's appeal against conviction and sentence, and Deeprose's renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence.
- •Overarching issue: whether a vehicle can be considered a 'weapon taken to the scene' under sentencing guidelines.
- •Deeprose used a car to attack two men, causing serious injuries; convicted of attempted murder.
- •Papworth, acting in concert with Bennison, used a car to attack two men, killing one; convicted of murder and attempted murder.
- •Sentencing considerations included the Sentencing Act 2020, Schedule 21, and the Sentencing Council's attempted murder guideline.
Legal Principles
Sentencing for murder involves determining a minimum term, considering the offence's seriousness and applying Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020.
Sentencing Act 2020, sections 321 & 322, Schedule 21
Sentencing for attempted murder requires determining the offence category (culpability and harm) per the Sentencing Council guideline.
Sentencing Code, section 59(1); Sentencing Council guideline for attempted murder
Schedule 21, paragraph 4(2) defines 'taking a weapon to the scene' for murder sentencing; this includes 'other weapons' beyond knives.
Sentencing Act 2020, Schedule 21, paragraph 4(2)
A car can be a weapon taken to the scene if it was taken there with the intention of using it as a weapon, and was so used.
Case law (R v Beckford, R v Whittle, R v Malt), Court interpretation of Schedule 21
The court's sentence is what's announced in open court, not what's subsequently recorded in the court order.
Leitch and others [2024] EWCA Crim 563
Outcomes
Papworth's appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.
Sufficient evidence supported the convictions; the sentence was not manifestly excessive.
Deeprose's renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence granted, but the appeal dismissed.
Judge's findings of fact were justified; the sentence was not manifestly excessive; however, the driving disqualification was flawed due to procedural error.