King v Filippo Sangermano
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | McCloskey LJ |
| Judgment Date | 26 October 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] NICA 62 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 26 October 2022 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2022] NICA 62
Judgment: approved by the court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: McC11982
ICOS No: 21/044472/A01
Delivered: 26/10/2022
IN HER MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
___________
ON APPEAL FROM LAGANSIDE CROWN COURT
___________
THE KING
v
FILIPPO SANGERMANO
___________
Before: McCloskey LJ, McBride J and Fowler J
___________
Appearances
Appellant: Mr Declan Quinn, of counsel, instructed by RP Crawford Solicitors
Respondent: Mr David McNeill, of counsel, instructed by the Public Prosecution
Service
___________
McCloskey LJ (delivering the judgment of the court)
INDEX
Subject Paragraph No
Introduction 1
The Course of the Prosecution 2-4
Basis of Plea 5
The Sentencing Information 6-14
The Sentencing Hearing 15-20
The Impugned Sentencing Decision 21-23
The Appeal 24-28
Guidance from the Decided Cases 29-44
Some Further Guidance 45-48
Dangerousness: The Legal Rules 49-57
The Pre-Sentence Report Issues 58-63
2
The BOP Issues 64-75
The Issues for this Court 76
The Dangerousness Assessment 77-79
The VOPO 80-82
The Custodial Term 83-84
Best Practice 85-86
Outcome 87
Preface
This appeal raises the inter-related issues of the composition and content of so-called
“basis of plea” documents, the information which a sentencing judge can
permissibly take into account, Newton hearings, the right of every accused person to
a fair sentencing process as part of their overarching right to a fair trial, the burden
of proof on the prosecution in the sentencing process, the compilation of
pre-sentence reports and the duties owed by counsel to the sentencing court.
Introduction
[1] By this appeal Filippo Sangermano (“the Appellant”) challenges the sentence
imposed upon him by Laganside Crown Court (venue Craigavon) on 15th February
2022 whereby for the offence of one count of causing actual bodily harm contrary to
section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 he was sentenced as follows:
(i) An extended custodial sentence (“ECS”) comprising immediate imprisonment
of two and a half years supplemented by, upon release, a licence of two years
duration containing the following conditions:
(a) To present himself in accordance with the instructions given by his
Probation Officer (“PO”) at an intensive supervision unit to actively
participate in a programme designed to address domestic abuse and to
comply with the instructions given under the authority of the person in
charge;
(b) Not to develop any intimate relationship without first notifying his PO
who will then take appropriate steps to ensure that verifiable
disclosure has been made and will liaise with social services in respect
of any appropriate child protection concerns;
(c) To attend all appointments arranged with PBNI Psychology and
medical professionals and to co-operate fully with any recommended
care or treatment; and
(d) To reside only at an address approved by his supervising officer.
3
(ii) A violent offences prevention order (“VOPO”) of five years duration
containing the following conditions:
(a) Prohibition against residing or staying overnight at any address
without the prior approval of his Designated Risk Manager (“DRM”);
(b) Prohibition against entering into any romantic or sexual relationship
with any person without having made to that person full disclosure of
his criminal record and such disclosure having been verified by his
DRM;
(c) To engage and co-operate in all reasonable requests made by his DRM
in relation to treatment programmes or courses designed to assist in
reducing his risk and anger management; and
(d) To receive visits from and engage with his DRM.
The Course of the Prosecution
[2] The bill of indictment, mirroring the initial charges, specified the following
offences:
(i) Wounding with intent, contrary to section 18 of the 1861 Act.
(ii) Possession of an offensive weapon, namely nail scissors, with intent to
commit the indictable offence of wounding with intent;
(iii) Criminal damage to the injured party’s mobile phone; and
(iv) Common assault upon the injured party by striking her with a crutch.
[3] The offending occurred on 29 October 2020, the appellant was arrested
promptly and was first remanded in custody the following day. The prosecution
was completed when the impugned sentencing decision was promulgated on
15 February 2022. Between these two dates there were certain events which must be
considered in order to understand the main issues thrown up by this appeal:
(i) On 23 August 2021 the appellant was arraigned, pleading not guilty to all four
counts.
(ii) On 23 November 2021 the defence legal representatives received disclosure of
the notes of a meeting attended by police and the injured party in which she
claimed that she had stabbed herself (these notes were not provided to the
court and no particulars of this bare statement were supplied).
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
King v Qing Wen Lin, Long Quang Lin Lin Zheng, Zhu Lin & Yang Wu Chen
...which have given this court cause for concern. It is timely to draw attention to 43 the recent decision of this court in R v Sangermano [2022] NICA 62 at paras [64]–[75] especially. [118] The further consideration which troubles this court is the manner in which the issue of hierarchy of of......