Dilks, R v

Sentence for simple arson must reflect the offence’s grave consequences while giving proper weight to the offender’s plea, relevant antecedents, whether the offending is isolated, and the assessed risk of repetition. A lengthy custodial sentence may be excessive where the offender has no propensity for arson and presents no high risk of further fire-setting, notwithstanding serious property damage and a substantial criminal record.

The appellant appealed, with leave of the Single Judge, against sentences imposed at Nottingham Crown Court for simple arson, escape, and breach of a previous licence.

He had forced entry into an occupied terraced house while its occupants were out, poured petrol on a sofa, and started a fire which destroyed the house. He pleaded guilty on the day fixed for trial. The psychiatric and pre-sentence material identified drug addiction and remorse, but no major mental illness or high risk of further fire-setting.

The sentencing judge imposed seven years’ imprisonment for arson, consecutive to six months for breach of licence, with three months for escape concurrent. The issue was whether the seven-year arson sentence was excessive.

1. The appeal was allowed to the extent of reducing the arson sentence. The court substituted five years’ imprisonment for the seven-year sentence for simple arson. That sentence was to remain consecutive to the six-month sentence for breach of licence. The concurrent three-month sentence for escape was unaffected.
2. The offending was very serious. The appellant had entered the house, used petrol to start the fire, and caused its complete destruction. Those matters justified a substantial custodial sentence.
3. However, the sentencing exercise also required weight to be given to the guilty plea, although entered late; the unusual circumstances in which the appellant agreed to start the fire; and the absence of previous arson convictions or any propensity to commit arson. The available reports also indicated that he did not present a high risk of setting further fires.
4. Balancing those considerations against his bad criminal record and the seriousness of the damage, the court concluded, with some hesitation, that seven years was too long. A five-year consecutive sentence was appropriate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): appeal against sentence allowed in part; the seven-year sentence for simple arson was substituted with five years’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Nottingham: on 7 April 2005, imposed seven years’ imprisonment for simple arson consecutively to six months for breach of licence; three months for escape was concurrent.