Shaffi, R. v

Under section 225(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, a sentence of life imprisonment or imprisonment for public protection requires a significant risk of serious harm. A risk of further serious specified offences does not itself establish that requirement. The evidence must support a risk of death or serious physical or psychological injury.

A sentencing court must not approach future risk by asking whether there is a guarantee against reoffending. Where the statutory dangerousness threshold is not met, the court must impose an appropriate determinate sentence instead of a life sentence or imprisonment for public protection.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Bradford to attempted robbery, robbery, carrying an imitation firearm to commit the robbery, and handling stolen car keys. The offences involved attempts to steal cars from women in public car parks, including one completed robbery with an imitation firearm.

The Recorder imposed life imprisonment under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The appellant appealed with leave, contending that the evidence did not establish a significant risk of serious harm to the public and that the life sentence was unjustified. The central issue was whether the statutory dangerousness criteria were satisfied.

1. Appeal allowed. The life sentence was quashed and concurrent determinate sentences of 10 years' imprisonment were substituted on counts 3, 4 and 5, with a concurrent sentence of one year on count 6.

2. Section 225(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 required a significant risk to the public of serious harm from further specified offences. By section 224(3), serious harm meant death or serious personal injury, whether physical or psychological. The statutory question was therefore not answered merely by establishing a significant risk of further offending or by the seriousness of the anticipated offences.

3. The evidence did not establish that any victim had suffered serious psychological harm. There was no medical evidence, and the material concerning the victims' fear, insomnia and loss of confidence did not demonstrate harm of the necessary seriousness. The appellant's previous offences also supplied no significant evidence of serious harm. The Recorder gave insufficient weight to that absence of evidence.

4. The Recorder further adopted too demanding a formulation by looking for a guarantee that the appellant would not reoffend. That was not the statutory test. The Court noted that the Recorder had not had the benefit of R v Lang 2005 EWCA Crim 2864.

5. Since the section 225(1)(b) criterion was not met, neither life imprisonment nor imprisonment for public protection was available. The Court nevertheless recorded, as an alternative conclusion, that the seriousness condition in section 225(2)(b) would not have justified life imprisonment. It accepted that the test referred to in R v Chapman [2000] 1 CAR(S) 377 continued to apply.

6. A lengthy determinate sentence was required. Allowing for the guilty pleas and remorse, but recognising the use of an imitation firearm, the correct sentence was 10 years. Credit of 173 days for remand custody was ordered, leaving a period to serve of four years and 192 days.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal and quashed the life sentence imposed under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
• Crown Court at Bradford: On 30 September 2005, the Recorder of Bradford imposed life imprisonment following guilty pleas to robbery-related offences.