Christopher Howe admitted throwing lump of concrete during large-scale disorder on August 5
A judge has said a decision by the Crown Prosecution Service to reduce a charge of violent disorder to affray, on a man who hurled a lump of concrete at rival protestors in Plymouth on August 5, was “wrong, and seriously wrong”.
Christopher Howe, aged 53 and from Boscawen Place in Plymouth appeared at Plymouth Crown Court today, following his initial arrest a few days after the disorder in the city centre on the evening of August 5.
He was charged initially with violent disorder, but last week he appeared at Plymouth Crown Court where the charged had been amended to affray.
At the time Judge Robert Linford – who has so far presided over all the sentencing hearings of adults involved in the protests – questioned the new indictment and requested the matter go back to the “very senior Crown Prosecutor” who had made the decision to amend in charge.
At the time he passed a restriction barring any reporting of that hearing. The matter returned to court today and saw prosecutor Edward Bailey continue with the amended indictment of affray, to which Howe pleaded guilty.
Mr Bailey told the court that at 8.23pm on August 5 a police officer, working as a member of the police liaison team, which was tasked with “appealing for calm” during the early part of the protest, spotted Howe. Her bodyworn camera captured him throwing an object from the Hoe-side of Royal Parade towards the anti-immigration protestors on the north side of the road.
The court heard she escorted him away from the area, told him his actions were being recorded and contacted a senior officer on her radio for guidance.
Mr Bailey said Howe told officers he was a recovering alcoholic with a mental health disorder. As a result he was cautioned, telling the officers “it was a silly mistake”. He was told to leave the area which he did and the officer noted that Howe was “polite and engaging” throughout the interaction.
However, a few days later the same officer saw Howe entering the Poundland store in the city centre and radioed a supervisor who advised her to arrest him immediately.
Howe told the officer “you told me to walk away and I thought that was the end of it. It was a silly mistake. Will I be sentenced. Is it about the concrete that I threw. What a silly thing to do.”
During interview with police Mr Bailey said Howe admitted being in the city centre from around 11.30am and had been shopping. He later heard the beginnings of the protest but said he was unaware of what it was about. He walked towards it and at different points walked among both groups of protestors.
He told police nothing was thrown at him, but he saw the piece of concrete on the ground after it had landed near him, picked it up and threw it. He told police he did not know why he did it and “threw it without thinking about the repercussions”.
The court heard Howe told police he suffered from psychosis and heard voices although none told him to throw the concrete. He did not believe he was having an episode at that time and he had taken his medication.
Mr Bailey read out a number of submissions about the impact the disorder had on the local community and businesses, noting that the Theatre Royal had to cancel its performance that night and 800 tickets sold had to be reimbursed, costing the theatre around £5,000 plus additional losses due to revenue lost through the sale of merchandise, food and drink.
A representative of Piety Islamic Education Trust said the disorder meant that children’s activities had to be cancelled that afternoon, evening classes and prayers for women were also cancelled and Plymouth’s Islamic community was “left in fear”.
In mitigation, Howe’s advocate Deni Matthews noted that he was of previous good character and a letter from the CPS had explained why the charge of affray had replaced the original charge of violent disorder.
He said it was a short-lived incident, with only one item thrown. He said since 2019 Howe has lost both his wife and his mother in quick succession.
He had been a care worker up until that point but afterwards his mental health had suffered. He had two grown up daughters and two grandchildren and had a partner since the loss of his wife.
Mr Matthews noted that Howe had already spent 52 days on remand and had been allowed to work labouring and gardening while in prison, had achieved a level of trust for his good behaviour and had taken up courses purely to keep busy and active while on remand.
Judge Robert Linford reminded Howe of his words to other offenders who had come before him to be sentenced for violent disorder in Plymouth, stating that there had been “widespread orchestrated public disorder” and adding that police who attended “acted with considerable and commendable restraint in the way that they dealt with those that were intent on trouble”.
He said the impact of the disorder on the city had been “considerable”, with shops, pubs, clubs and the theatre having to close with a substantial loss of revenue, bus routes were disrupted, elements of the community were in fear and the ambulance service was affected.
He said people came into the city centre and “ran amok” throwing stones, fireworks, missiles with the intent of “damaging property and hurting other people” and reminded Howe that he had warned others who had faced him in court that “people who involved themselves in this incident go to prison – it is as simple as that.”
He told Howe he wanted to make it clear he would sentence him for the offence of affray as this was the charge the Crown Prosecution Service had chosen to indict him with “in stark and remarkable contrast to the position of others who have been indicted with a much more serious offence of violent disorder”.
Judge Linford told Howe: “As you know, I have questioned that decision, but the prosecution stand by it. The fact that I believe them to be wrong – and seriously wrong – cannot affect the sentence which I pass on you, because that decision is not any of your doing.”
He explained that Howe was on the Hoe side of the Royal Parade and “in common with others who I have sentenced, were seen to throw an item at the other group”.
Judge Linford said Howe was taken away by a police officer, apologised and was cautioned, claiming it was a “silly mistake”.
He remarked: “It was more than that. It was extremely dangerous. When you were arrested, sometime later, you confessed that was a piece of concrete. I don’t know what CCTV those responsible for this charge saw, but I saw you throw that object and you were part of that group on [the Hoe] side of Royal Parade.”
He noted the “considerable” mitigation available to Howe, including his age, his lack of any previous convictions, his “genuine” remorse, his mental health issues and the loss of close loved ones.
He also noted that he was not a part of group activity. He said Howe had a “good work ethic” and said he hoped Howe was successful in returning to work in the care industry.
He added: “This incident aside, you are an utterly and completely decent member of society.” He also added that Howe pleaded guilty “at the earliest possible opportunity”.
Judge Linford said his starting point, under the sentencing guidelines, was two years, reduced to 16 months due to the early guilty plea.
However, he said that with regards to Howe’s sentence he had to “stand back and look at sentences received by others”.
He said there were others who pleaded guilty to violent disorder who received sentences longer than 16 months, remarking “I’ve got to do justice – I’ve got to reflect that you’ve had the good fortune to have been charged with an offence with a less severe maximum sentence.”
As such he said he would reduce the sentence to 10 months and Howe would serve four months before being released with the rest of the term spent on licence.
In closing Judge Linford said he would lift reporting restrictions, adding “this sentencing exercise may be reported”.
Plymouth Herald
