Norris, R. v

A sentence of detention for public protection requires the statutory threshold of a significant risk of serious harm to be met. The assessment is for the judge, who must evaluate all the material before the court. A probation officer’s assessment is relevant but does not determine the issue.

A future risk which cannot wholly be excluded is insufficient. Where the circumstances of the offence, the offender’s record and the available reports do not establish a significant risk, an indeterminate public-protection sentence must be replaced by a determinate sentence.

The appellant, aged 19 and of previous good character, pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Preston to attempted robbery. He had threatened a petrol-station cashier with a knife during an attempted robbery committed after drinking heavily.

The Crown Court imposed detention in a young offender institution for public protection under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 226, with a two-year minimum term. The appellant appealed against sentence. He challenged the finding of dangerousness and, separately, the six-year starting point used to fix the minimum term.

The central issue was whether the statutory dangerousness threshold had been met and, if not, what determinate sentence should replace the indeterminate sentence.

1. The appeal was allowed in part. The sentence of detention for public protection was quashed and replaced with four years’ detention in a young offender institution.

2. The assessment of dangerousness for section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 is the judge’s responsibility. The judge must consider the material before the court, including a probation officer’s assessment, but is not constrained by that assessment.

3. The statutory test requires a significant risk of serious harm. It is ordinarily impossible to exclude every future risk, but that does not satisfy the threshold. The appellant had no previous convictions. The reports identified bizarre behaviour and self-harm when intoxicated, but did not establish a significant risk of serious harm from further specified offending. Alcohol and the exceptional circumstances surrounding the offence materially informed that conclusion.

4. The Court rejected the challenge to the six-year starting point for a determinate sentence. It was not manifestly excessive for an attempted night-time robbery of a vulnerable cashier involving a knife. Allowing the appropriate credit for the guilty plea, the proper substituted sentence was four years’ detention.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)—the appeal against sentence was allowed in part: the detention-for-public-protection sentence was quashed and a four-year determinate sentence substituted: [2007] EWCA Crim 1103.
• Crown Court at Preston—on 27 October 2006, following a guilty plea to attempted robbery, imposed detention in a young offender institution for public protection with a two-year minimum term.