G, R. v

For a particularly young offender, a finding of significant risk of serious harm does not inevitably require an indeterminate sentence. The sentencing court must take account of the greater prospect that a young person may change and mature within a comparatively short period. Where that prospect, and evidence of improvement, makes detention for public protection inappropriate, an extended sentence may provide the necessary public protection.

The appellant was aged 14 when he committed a series of arson offences, including arson reckless as to whether life would be endangered. He pleaded guilty and asked for further simple arsons to be taken into account.

The sentencing judge imposed detention for public protection with a minimum term of one year, having found a significant risk of serious harm from further specified offences. The appellant appealed against that sentence. The central issue was whether, despite the risk finding and seriousness of the offences, his age and prospects of maturation required an extended sentence instead.

Appeal allowed in part. The court quashed the sentence of detention for public protection and substituted an extended sentence of seven years, comprising two years’ detention and a five-year extension period.

1. The judge was entitled to find that the appellant presented a significant risk of serious harm from further specified offences. The number and gravity of the fires, together with the observations in the psychiatric and pre-sentence reports, justified that conclusion. The appellant’s challenge to the evidential basis for dangerousness therefore failed.

2. The judge should nevertheless have considered the extended-sentence regime under Criminal Justice Act 2003. In the case of a serious offence committed by a very young offender, the sentencing judge should ordinarily consider whether an extended sentence is more appropriate than indeterminate detention.

3. Following Lang [2006] 2 Cr App R (S), youth, maturity and the prospect of relatively rapid change are highly relevant to the assessment of future risk. An indeterminate sentence may be inappropriate for a particularly young offender even where a serious offence has been committed and significant risk is established.

4. The appellant was 14 at the time of the offences and conviction. He had committed no further offence during more than a year on bail, which provided some indication of change and maturation. Those matters made an extended sentence appropriate. The seriousness of the offending justified a two-year custodial term and the maximum five-year extension period for a violent offence.

• Crown Court (not otherwise identified): The appellant pleaded guilty to arson offences and was sentenced to detention for public protection with a minimum term of one year.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was allowed to the extent that the indeterminate sentence was quashed and replaced with an extended sentence of seven years.