Holland & Anor, R. v

A sentencing judge may find that the statutory presumption of dangerousness has not been rebutted where the totality of the offender’s antecedents and pre-sentence material supports that conclusion. An appellate court will not normally interfere where the sentencer identified the relevant principles and considered the relevant facts.

In violent-disorder cases, seriousness and the offenders’ respective roles are primarily matters for the sentencing judge. A disparity with sentences imposed on less culpable co-offenders will not make a principal offender’s sentence manifestly excessive. An extended licence period imposed under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 protects the public and does not itself establish excessive disparity.

Holland and James pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Manchester Minshull Street to violent disorder arising from serious disorder between rival football supporters at a public house and nearby road. The sentencing judge treated both appellants, together with an absconding co-accused, as principal offenders.

Each appellant received an extended sentence of four years under section 227 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, comprising two years and six months’ custody and an 18-month extension period. Holland did not challenge the finding that he was dangerous. James challenged that finding under section 229, and both appellants challenged the custodial terms as excessive and disproportionate to sentences imposed on co-accused.

The central issues were whether James had properly been assessed as dangerous and whether either extended sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Leave was granted, but both appeals were dismissed. The sentencing judge was entitled to conclude that James was dangerous and that the section 229 presumption had not been rebutted. His previous specified offending and the pre-sentence report provided ample material for that conclusion, notwithstanding the absence of serious injury in the present incident or identified serious harm in the earlier offences.

2. The court applied the appellate restraint stated in R v Johnson and Others [2006] EWCA Crim 2486. A sentencing court’s conclusion on dangerousness will normally stand where it has identified the relevant principles and considered the relevant facts. That was the position here.

3. Violent disorder connected with football violence can vary greatly in seriousness. The sentencing judge was best placed to assess the appellants’ leading roles and to set the custodial terms. The difference between their sentences and those of co-accused did not show that the terms of two years and six months were manifestly excessive.

4. The 18-month extension period did not strengthen the disparity argument. Its function was the protection of the public by a longer period on licence for offenders found dangerous. There was no basis to alter either sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted leave and dismissed both appeals against sentence in [2007] EWCA Crim 1035.

• Crown Court at Manchester Minshull Street: On 8 December 2006, imposed on each appellant an extended sentence under section 227 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, consisting of two years and six months’ custody and an 18-month extension period.