D, R. v Hollie Louise

Where a young offender has committed a serious specified offence and presents a significant risk of serious harm to the public, an extended sentence is mandatory under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 228(2). An indeterminate sentence nevertheless requires separate justification. In assessing its necessity, the court must give proper weight to the offender’s age, limited criminal history, potential for change, extent of serious offending, and the prospect that supervision on release can protect the public. A long extension period may provide adequate protection where the risk is real but likely to reduce as the child develops and responds to support.

A 13-year-old girl pleaded guilty to robbery, affray and criminal damage, and asked further offences to be taken into consideration. The robbery involved a sustained assault on an 11-year-old girl, during which property was taken. The Crown Court imposed detention for public protection for an indeterminate period under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 226(3), with a minimum term of 12 months.

On appeal, fresh psychological and youth-offending evidence assessed the appellant’s risk more favourably and identified recent progress. The issue was whether the evidence established a significant risk of serious harm, and, if so, whether an indeterminate sentence rather than an extended sentence was justified.

1. Appeal allowed. The indeterminate sentence was quashed and replaced with an extended sentence of four years, comprising 12 months’ detention and a three-year extension.

2. The court held that the robbery, viewed with the available risk material, established a significant risk of serious harm to members of the public. The statutory condition for an extended sentence was therefore met. Once that condition was met, section 228(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 required the court to impose an extended sentence.

3. An indeterminate sentence was not justified. The appellant was very young, had little previous offending, had committed offences during a short period, and the robbery was the only offence of limited serious criminality. She also had a realistic prospect of substantial improvement through placement, support and development.

4. A three-year extension, following the 12-month custodial term, appropriately protected the public while allowing supervision until the appellant was about 17½. The court considered that period sufficient in light of the evidence that she was beginning to reduce the risk she posed.

5. The court additionally observed that it was unnecessary and undesirable to require a child to stand throughout lengthy sentencing remarks.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal, quashed detention for public protection, and substituted an extended sentence of four years: [2005] EWCA Crim 2292.
• Crown Court at Peterborough: On 12 July 2005 imposed detention for public protection for an indeterminate period under section 226(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, with a minimum term of 12 months.
• Huntingdon Youth Court: On 31 May 2005 committed the appellant to the Crown Court for sentence under section 3 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.