Court of Appeal Upholds Sentences in R v Vito di Marco & Anor, Emphasizing Assessment of Harm and Dangerousness

Introduction

The case of R v Vito di Marco & Anor (EWCA Crim 19) presents an appeal against sentences for the attempted murder of Kevin Hickey. This article will dissect the Court of Appeal’s approach and the legal principles it applied in reviewing and determining the appropriateness of the sentences handed down by the Crown Court at Warwick.

Key Facts

Vito Di Marco and Darren Hattersley were convicted of attempted murder, leading to various sentences; a life sentence for Di Marco and an extended determinate sentence for Hattersley. Both appealed their sentences, bringing into question the assessment of harm caused to the victim and the classification of the appellants’ danger to society. The crux of the appeal centered on the judge’s interpretation of harm and dangerousness.

The Crown Court judged the case as category A for culpability and harm between categories 1 and 2 under the relevant sentencing guidelines, with the Crown Court judge determining that both appellants were dangerous offenders.

Legal Principals

The legal principles touched upon in this case include the assessment of harm and dangerousness under the sentencing guidelines, the appropriate categorization of the offense, and justification for the type of sentence imposed (life vs. extended determinate sentence).

Assessment of Harm

The Crown Court at Warwick assessed harm by balancing physical and psychological consequences. The judge took into account both the guidelines and facts presented during the trial, including a personal victim statement describing long-term disabilities and severe psychological distress resulting from the offense.

Dangerousness

The notion of dangerousness, as per the case law reference to Attorney-General’s Reference 27 of 2013 (R v Burinskas), requires considering the offender’s history, the nature of the offense, and the court’s estimate on when or if the offender will no longer be a threat to the public.

Sentence Justification

The appeal also discussed the justification of life sentences prescribed under the Criminal Justice Act of 2003, examining the prerequisites for an alternative to a determinate sentence and whether the Crown Court judge at Warwick evaluated these accordingly.

Outcomes

The appeal was refused, the court determined that the sentences were appropriate and justifiable. The assessment of harm was deemed rightly placed between the highest categories. As for dangerousness, the Court of Appeal agreed with the Judge’s finding that Di Marco’s role as instigator and planner of the murder plot made him more dangerous than his accomplices, thereby justifying a life sentence.

Regarding Hattersley, the Court found that his role in recruiting another man for the execution and his established ability to do so rendered him a dangerous offender regardless of prior convictions of violence or the fact he may not have always shown sophistication in his criminal activities.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal in R v Vito di Marco & Anor solidified the Crown Court’s sentencing decision, providing significant insight into how higher courts interpret and apply the principles of harm and dangerousness. The court found no errors in the previous judge’s rationale or application of the sentencing guidelines, upholding the life sentence for Di Marco and the extended determinate sentence for Hattersley. The case exemplifies how crucial the individual facts and context are in assessing the gravity of offenses and the risk posed by offenders.