Rex vs Tyler John Hunt

This case concerned the appeal of Tyler John Hunt against the sentence for his murder conviction, focusing on the disparity in sentencing between Hunt and his co-accused, D.

TLDR:

• Tyler John Hunt appealed against his murder sentence.
• The appeal focused on the sentencing disparity between Hunt and his co-accused, D.
• The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the original sentence.

On 30 November 2023, Tyler John Hunt was convicted of murder in the Crown Court at Bristol. He had previously pleaded guilty to possessing an article with a blade or point. Hunt's co-accused, referred to as 'D', was also convicted of murder. Due to his age, an order was made under section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to protect D's identity.

Hunt was sentenced to be detained at His Majesty's Pleasure with a minimum term of 18 years and 63 days. No separate penalty was imposed for the bladed article offence. His application for leave to appeal against the sentence was referred to the full court by the Registrar, and leave was granted.

The factual background revealed that on 4 December 2022, Hunt and D rode borrowed e-bikes to a shopping park in Swindon. Both were armed with machetes and dressed in black with balaclavas. They encountered Owen Dunn, an 18-year-old, whom they did not know. During the confrontation, D stabbed Dunn, causing fatal injuries. Hunt swung his machete but missed. Dunn died within minutes.

Hunt was arrested on 7 March 2023, tracked by an electronic tag he was wearing. He initially denied involvement but later claimed self-defense, which the trial judge rejected. Hunt had a history of minor violent offences and was on bail for threatening behavior at the time of the murder.

The sentencing judge considered victim personal statements and reports on Hunt's troubled background and progress while on remand. The judge applied paragraph 5A of Schedule 21 of the Sentencing Code, determining starting points for the minimum term based on the defendants' ages. For Hunt, the starting point was 23 years, reduced to 19 years due to mitigating factors.

The sole ground of appeal was the disparity in minimum terms between Hunt and D, arguing that the statutory scheme was unjust. The Court of Appeal referred to previous cases and the introduction of paragraph 5A, which aimed to address age-related disparities. The court emphasized that sentencing judges must consider maturity and culpability beyond chronological age.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced the factors and achieved a just result within the statutory framework. The court noted that any perceived injustice might be due to leniency towards D rather than excessive harshness towards Hunt.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal dismissed Hunt's appeal, affirming that the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

Legal representatives: Miss S Jones KC for the Applicant, Mr M Burrows KC for the Crown

Judicial Panel: Lord Justice William Davis, Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb DBE, His Honour Judge Dennis Watson KC

Case Citation Reference: [2024] EWCA Crim 629