Appeal against Life Sentence for Murder Explores Joint Enterprise and Individual Culpability

Citation: [2023] EWCA Crim 1437
Judgment on


The Court of Appeal case R v Joshua James Cameron Prescott [2023] EWCA Crim 1437 comprises an appeal against a life sentence with a minimum term for murder. The case epitomizes several legal principles relevant to sentencing practice in the United Kingdom, particularly in the context of murder committed jointly by several individuals with varying levels of prior criminal records and degrees of involvement. The appeal raises issues concerning the assessment of individual culpability and the proper application of sentencing guidelines in a joint enterprise case.

Key Facts

The key facts of the case as outlined in court documents are as follows:

  • Joshua Prescott, the appellant, was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 17 years (less time spent on remand) for the murder of one Thomas Williamson.
  • The murder occurred on September 25, 2021, with the defendant aged 19 at the time of the crime.
  • Two co-defendants, Ben Dawber and Kane Adamson, were also convicted of murder and received life sentences with different minimum terms.
  • The group’s intention to engage in criminal activity was substantiated by exchanged messages and actions, including prior attempted robbery and drug influence.
  • A weapon involved in the murder was initially carried by the victim, suggesting a defensive action by the victim that resulted in his death.
  • The appellant’s antecedents included two convictions, one relevant to possessing an offensive weapon.

The case explores several critical legal principles, focusing predominantly on:

  1. Sentencing Guidelines and Schedule 21 of the Sentencing Act 2020: The court applied these guidelines to determine the starting point for the minimum term based on the offender’s age at the time of the murder. These were further modified by aggravating and mitigating factors.

  2. Joint Enterprise: The court evaluated the roles played by each of the defendants in the joint commission of the murder to ascertain individual culpability.

  3. Assessment of Aggravating and Mitigating Factors: Aggravating factors such as premeditation, group attack, and vulnerability of the victim were weighed against mitigating factors such as youth and troubled backgrounds.

  4. Criminal Antecedents: The court considered previous convictions, especially where they carry relevance to the current offense.

  5. Appeal Against Sentence: Principles concerning the grounds on which an appeal against sentence may be allowed, specifically looking at factors like disparity among co-defendants, roles in the commission of the crime, and participation in the aftermath, such as destroying evidence.

  6. Disparity Argument Relative to Co-Defendants: Analysis of whether sentencing differences among co-defendants were justifiably proportionate concerning their respective involvement and antecedents.


The key outcomes of the appeal were:

  • The appeal was dismissed, with the Court concluding that the sentence imposed was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.
  • The Court found no significant disparity in sentences among the co-defendants, because the judged distinguished sufficiently based on available differentiating factors.
  • It was established that all defendants actively participated in the murder, and the Court did not differentiate the appellant’s role from that of the co-defendants significantly.


The decision in R v Joshua James Cameron Prescott reaffirms the application of current sentencing guidelines and the assessment of individual culpability within the context of a joint enterprise. It underscores the courts’ reluctance to intervene in the delicate balance of sentencing judgments unless there exists a clear example of unfair disparity or misapplication of law. For practicing lawyers, the case illuminates the complexities surrounding sentencing appeals and the meticulous approach the courts take in affirming that justice is served in connection to both the crime and the criminals involved.

Related Summaries