Imprisonment - Length of sentence - Violent disorder - Defendant involved in student protests over tuition fees

R v Gilmour: CA (Crim Div) (Lord Justice Hughes, Mr Justice Cranston, Mr Justice Hickinbottom): 28 October 2011

The defendant, aged 21, was an undergraduate. He was charged with violent disorder in respect of his conduct at a demonstration, in December 2010, against government proposals relating to the funding of further education.

The prosecution case was that the defendant had taken part in an attack on cars conveying the Prince of Wales, the Duchess of Cornwall and other persons to a public engagement. He could be seen on CCTV footage pressing against the cars and being knocked to the ground by escorting officers.

The defendant could also be seen on camera sitting on the bonnet of one of the escort cars. The prosecution further contended that the defendant had been one of a number of persons who had thrown a bin at the cars. CCTV footage of Oxford Street showed the defendant joining the attack on the windows of a shop. He was seen to twice run up and kick the window, which had been attacked by other protesters. The combined effect caused the window to break. The defendant took a mannequin from the store and carried it away.

He could be seen still holding the mannequin while conducting a television interview. The defendant attempted to set fire to a bundle of newspapers against wooden doors of the Supreme Court. Shortly thereafter he was seen swinging on one of the flags of the cenotaph. There was evidence that the defendant, who had no previous convictions, had been under the influence of drink and drugs on the day in question. He pleaded guilty to violent disorder.

The judge made findings of fact based mainly on still images and CCTV footage. The judge held that the defendant could not be identified simply by his features from the photographs as the bin thrower. The expert evidence was such that he could not be excluded as the person who had thrown the bin. The defendant was sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment. He applied for leave to appeal against sentence. He submitted that the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances. The application would be dismissed.

It was settled that the law protected the right of people to demonstrate. To do so in large numbers in public carried clear responsibilities, principally among them to act without disorder or violence which put the public at risk. It was an unavoidable feature of mass disorder that each individual act, whatever might be its character taken on its own, inflamed and encouraged others to behave similarly, and that the harm done to the public stemmed from the combined effect of what was done en masse. The authorities recommended a starting point of 27 months for violent disorder (see [16] of the judgment).

In the instant case, the judge had to have taken a starting point for the sentence well below that contemplated in the authorities. Violence in the instant context and of the kind displayed by the defendant could not normally be met by other than significant sentences of immediate custody even for those of otherwise good character. Violent disorder carried a maximum of five years’ imprisonment.

A sentence in the region of 20-21 months’ imprisonment after trial, correctly took account both of the defendant’s serious and dangerous acts in the inflammatory context and of his normal character. It was a penalty which properly met the facts of the case. The sentence was not arguably manifestly excessive or wrong in principle (see [17] of the judgment).

David Spens QC (instructed by Corker Binning) for the defendant; Duncan Penny (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Crown.