C, R. v

For a particularly young offender, the assessment of future dangerousness must give proper weight to the capacity to mature, change and respond to supervision. An indeterminate sentence may be inappropriate even where a serious offence has been committed and there is a significant risk of serious harm.

Where assault occasioning actual bodily harm is a specified offence but not a serious offence, detention for public protection under Criminal Justice Act 2003 section 226 is unavailable for that offence. An extended sentence under section 228 may instead provide a just and proportionate response to a young offender’s risk and prospects of improvement.

The appellant, aged 14 when the offences were committed, pleaded guilty at Doncaster Crown Court to kidnapping and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He and a co-defendant had abducted and repeatedly assaulted the complainant while attempting to recover money which they believed she had taken.

The Crown Court imposed detention for public protection with a 261-day minimum term for the assault, and a concurrent 18-month term for kidnapping. Professional reports assessed the appellant as posing a high risk of further offending and serious harm, but later psychological and prison evidence identified his capacity and emerging efforts to improve.

By leave of the single judge, the appellant appealed against sentence. The central issue was whether an indeterminate sentence remained appropriate for this very young offender.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the detention-for-public-protection sentence and the existing sentences. It substituted an extended sentence of five years and six months for kidnapping, comprising 18 months’ detention and a four-year extension period. A concurrent 18-month sentence was imposed for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

2. The sentencing judge correctly recognised the different statutory classifications. Kidnapping was a serious specified offence under section 15 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, whereas assault occasioning actual bodily harm was specified but not serious. A sentence for public protection could not therefore be imposed for the assault.

3. The court applied the guidance in R v Lang and Others [2005] EWCA Crim 2864. When assessing a young offender’s future risk, the court must take account of the greater prospect that a child may change and develop, and of the offender’s maturity. In a particularly young offender, an indeterminate sentence can be inappropriate despite a serious offence and a significant risk of serious harm.

4. The appellant’s violent conduct and previous offending were grave, and the probation evidence had assessed him as dangerous. However, later professional evidence and his conduct in custody provided sufficient signs that he could improve and was improving. The case was borderline and turned on its own facts. An extended sentence under section 228 was the just sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted an extended sentence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
• Doncaster Crown Court: On 27 March 2006 imposed detention for public protection with a 261-day minimum term for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, with 18 months’ detention concurrently for kidnapping.