England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		No: 200502009/A2-200502010/A2 Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2
		Friday, 7th October 2005

1. MR JUSTICE WILKIE: This is the appeal against sentence of Nicholas Vernon Stansfield, now aged 38, and Christopher Lennon Stansfield, now aged 24, with leave granted by the Single Judge who also granted the necessary extension of time and a representation order.
2. On 20th May 2004, at Bradford Crown Court, Her Honour Judge Sutcliffe sentenced each of them to 7 years' imprisonment on one count of aggravated burglary of which they had each been convicted after a trial. In respect of Nicholas Stansfield there was a second count, wounding with intent, which was an alternative to count 1 and no verdict was recorded. Similarly, in respect of Christopher Stansfield, no verdict was recorded on count 2, wounding with intent, but he was found not guilty on count 3, namely intimidation.
3. The circumstances of the offence are as follows. The appellants are brothers. The victim lived in a caravan and was friendly with another man called Dennenney who had previously been in a relationship with a woman called Miss Daniels and they had two children. Miss Daniels then commenced a relationship with Christopher Stansfield. Over Christmas 2002, Christopher Stansfield and the two children went on holiday to Spain. Arrangements had been made for Mr Dennenney to pick them up from Liverpool Airport on their return. But on the morning of 28th December the victim, Mr Bolton, received a telephone call from Christopher who appeared to blame him for the fact that Dennenney was not at the airport to meet them.
4. At about 11.00 pm on 1st January 2002 Mr Bolton was asleep in his caravan together with a friend who was staying the night. Mr Bolton was woken by shouting in his caravan and felt blows to his body. His friend ran out of the caravan and was so scared at what then transpired that he remained outside, in deep snow, for a period of half-an-hour, notwithstanding the fact that he was entirely naked. Mr Bolton immediately recognised the appellants. There was a third man with them, who was masked, whom he did not recognise. The brothers began hitting him with baseball bats. Nicholas Stansfield shouted something to him about Dennenney torching his car and both brothers shouted at him that he was responsible for starting the war between them. Christopher Stansfield shouted something about children.
5. Mr Bolton kept telling them that he did not know where Mr Dennenney was and put his arms up to protect himself. The attack went on for several minutes before the appellants and the other man left, smashing a couple of windows in the caravan as they did so. Mr Bolton made his way to a friend's home and from there the police and an ambulance were summoned. He was taken to hospital where he was treated for numerous bruises to his head, ribs and body, a cut to his left hand which required nine stitches, a broken right wrist and a wound in his leg which required three stitches.
6. Nicholas Stansfield was born on 16th July 1966. He has certain previous convictions but none of them of any relevance to this case. Christopher Stansfield was born on 5th January 1981 and was prior to this of previous good character.
7. The judge had the benefit of pre-sentence reports. They were dated 18th August 2003 in the case of Nicholas Stansfield and 15th August 2003 in the case of Christopher Stansfield. This was in advance of the trial and reflects the fact that on an earlier occasion they had, each of them, apparently on the basis of counsel's advice, entered pleas of guilty but they were permitted by the court to vacate those pleas and to enter pleas of not guilty, which then resulted in the trial after which they were convicted.
8. In addition to that material, we have had sight not only of a pre-appeal report from the prison but also a number of documents from the relevant prison and education establishments which demonstrate, not only that they are unproblematic as prisoners but have manifestly, in a number of ways, been making extremely good use of their time in prison.
9. The judge in sentencing them said, amongst other things as follows: that everyone was entitled to feel safe when they went to bed in their own home. The caravan was Bolton's home and he was entitled to sleep there undisturbed. When people force their way into someone else's home, armed with weapons, the courts had to pass deterrent sentences so that anyone who was tempted to take the law in their own hands would know they would have to pay a substantial price. She mentioned that it might be right that Nicholas Stansfield had been subjected to considerable provocation, but he had taken out his feeling not on the person he thought was responsible, but rather had attacked a seemingly ineffectual man who had done him no wrong. Christopher Stansfield seemed to take it out on the man because he perceived he had let him down and had willingly become involved in his brother's argument. No doubt they had expected to find Mr Dennenney there, but when they did not, they had taken it out on Bolton and she emphasised the terrifying nature of the incident leading to the fleeing of the other occupant of the caravan in circumstances which we have referred to.
10. She referred to the fact that they had initially pleaded guilty, but had been allowed to change their minds and had to be sentenced on the basis that they had been convicted by the jury. She also mentioned the impact which the incident had had on Mr Bolton. She accepted his description that:

"...he is now a nervous wreck as a result of what you did to him... and indeed he turned to drink as a result of this incident and has been drinking since."

She also made some reference to the fact that his drinking had been a matter about which he had been taxed in the course of the trial.

11. The grounds of appeal did not seek to raise any argument in respect of discrepancy between the two brothers who were sentenced to an identical term. As far as each of them was concerned, it was said that insufficient account had been taken of personal mitigation, either their relatively minor previous convictions or in the case of Christopher, the fact that he was a man of no previous conviction. The grievance which they felt against Dennenney concerning previous incidents, including a belief that he had torched Nicholas's car in the past, were also matters which it was said the judge had failed satisfactorily to take into account. Each of them raised the contention that they believed that the judge had penalised them for changing their pleas whereas their earlier pleas of guilty had been entered as a result of bad advice given by counsel.
12. Mr Cooke, who has resolutely advanced his case to us this morning, has also emphasised what he says was a deficiency in the sentencing remarks in that the learned judge did not refer to particular matters of mitigation and in particular the exemplary character of the defendants prior to their involvement in this offence.
13. The task which we have to perform is to consider whether a sentence of 7 years' imprisonment, passed on each of these appellants, after a trial, for the aggravated burglary which we have described, is manifestly excessive. Having considered all of the matters urged upon us, we are perfectly satisfied that the trial judge when sentencing did not unduly hold it against either of these appellants that they had the advantage of a change of plea, rather she recorded, as she was bound to do, that she was sentencing them as persons who had been convicted and who therefore were not entitled to any discount by reason of a plea of guilty. Nor do we think that there is anything at all in the point that she may or may not have referred to every single item of mitigation which had been mentioned in court or was otherwise contained in the reports.
14. We also are entirely unpersuaded that the sentences of 7 years, in respect of this horrific offence, committed against Mr Bolton was in any way manifestly excessive after a trial. It therefore follows that notwithstanding the best efforts of Mr Cooke, this appeal against sentence in respect of each of these appellants must be dismissed.