Why judges refused to extend three-and-a-half year prison sentence handed to Connor Brown killer Ally Gordon

Twenty-year-old Gordon was found guilty of manslaughter following a murder trial after the ‘wonderful’ 18-year-old Farringdon lad was stabbed to death in Sunderland city centre.

Co-accused Leighton Barrass was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison – serving a minimum of 20 years.

But there were gasps from the public gallery at Newcastle Crown Court when Mr Justice Lavender sentenced Gordon, of Polmuir Road, to three-and-a-half years for manslaughter and six months for possessing a bladed weapon to be served concurrently in a young offender’s institution.

The judges’s sentencing guidelines set out for Gordon’s crimes had a starting point of six years imprisonment but a range of three to nine years.

The Solicitor General, Rt Hon Michael Ellis QC, referred the sentence to London’s Court of Appeal on the grounds it was “potentially unduly lenient”.

The full judgement – made by Lady Justice Thirlwall DBE, Mr Justice Spencer and Sir David Foskett – found the killer’s sentence was lenient but not “unduly lenient” to the extent the court should interfere.

Connor’s parents have spoken of their heartbreak as the sentence was upheld and feel they’ve been let down by the judicial system.

These are the reasons that the Court of Appeal refused to extend Gordon’s sentence.

Earlier drug dealing by Barrass

The Solicitor General submits that the judge should have taken into account the “fact that there was a background of other criminality namely Barrass’s earlier drug dealing”.

During the trial in 2019, jurors were told Barrass had been trying to sell drugs in the back alley off Park Lane when he first came into contact with Connor and his friend.

The judgement rejects the submission and says it “had nothing to do with the respondent” (Gordon).

Gordon kicked Connor while he was ‘effectively defenceless’

It was submitted that Gordon had ‘kicked the victim when he had already been stabbed and when he was effectively defenceless’ and that the use of a shod foot as a weapon is generally regarded as a ‘serious aggravating feature in violent offences’.

But the judgement says: “The description of the offence does not accurately reflect the facts… The respondent was a secondary party. He did not wield a knife. He did not know there was a knife. He kicked and stamped when Brown was on top of Barrass who was, as he thought, punching Brown from underneath. He caused no injury.”

The offence took place at night in the city centre

The eight-page report says at the centre of the Solicitor General’s submissions was the disagreement that the judge ‘failed adequately to take account of the fact that this offence took place at night in a city centre’ and should be an aggravating factor.

But the judgement found that the case would have been ‘no less serious’ had it taken place in the middle of the day in the middle of town.

Gordon’s youth and previous good character

The Solicitor General’s reference ‘accurately sets out the mitigating factors’ including Gordon’s youth, good character, the fact that Connor had ‘started the violence which led to the attack by Barrass’ (albeit in the response to the threat of stabbing by Barrass of which Gordon was not aware), the lack of premeditation and remorse.

But he submits that the judge ‘should not have gone so far below the starting point of six years’.

Andrew Fisher QC, who defended Gordon during the crown court trial and appeared at the appeal application, said the Solicitor General’s submissions were based on a ‘misapprehension of the facts’ of the offence.

The written report said: “In our judgement the judge was bound to move up from the starting point to reflect the public nature of the offence.

“He was then bound to move down substantially to reflect the matters we have set out above. Whilst the judge did not think he was particularly immature for his age he was to be sentenced on the basis that he had the level of maturity of a 19-year-old.”

Lock knife offence should have led to longer sentence

The Solicitor General submitted that the lock knife offence should have attracted a consecutive sentence or the manslaughter sentence should have been longer to reflect the lock knife offence.

Mr Fisher QC said this was not an omission since the judge had specifically said he was going to include the sentence for the ‘murder/manslaughter the bladed article offences.’

The Court of Appeal judgement

The written report said: “The question is whether the overall sentence of three years and six months properly reflects the total criminality.

“Many judges would have passed a consecutive sentence in respect of the lock knife or would have imposed a longer sentence for manslaughter and a concurrent sentence for the bladed article. We are satisfied that the sentence was lenient.

“Is it unduly lenient such that this court should interfere?”

The judgement ends: “We are not satisfied that this sentence was unduly lenient. We refuse leave. The application is dismissed.”