White, R. v

An imprisonment for public protection sentence requires a reasonable conclusion that the offender poses a significant risk to the public of serious harm from further specified offences. The statutory assumption in section 229(3) does not displace the need for that evaluative conclusion. The assessment must take account of the offending history, the circumstances and intention of the present offence, and evidence bearing on future risk.

Where that threshold is not met, a determinate custodial sentence may adequately protect the public. In assessing its length, the court may treat a failure to obtain assistance for a seriously injured victim as an aggravating feature.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Luton of manslaughter after a jury rejected murder but accepted that he lacked an intention to cause really serious harm. During a confrontation, he had used a knife taken from the deceased and inflicted a wound which partially cut the femoral artery. The deceased did not receive timely medical assistance and died.

The sentencing judge imposed imprisonment for public protection, with a four-year minimum term, on the basis that the appellant posed a significant risk of serious harm from further specified offences. The appellant appealed against both the imprisonment for public protection sentence and the length of the specified term. The central issues were whether the statutory dangerousness threshold was met and, if not, what determinate sentence should be imposed.

1. Appeal allowed as to sentence. The court quashed the sentence of imprisonment for public protection and substituted a determinate sentence of eight years’ imprisonment, with credit for 358 days spent on remand.

2. The court applied the statutory dangerousness assessment in section 229(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Although the sentencing judge had not referred to the statutory assumption, the Court of Appeal was required to take it into account. It was nevertheless unreasonable to conclude that the appellant posed a significant risk to the public of serious harm from further specified offences.

3. The appellant’s previous offences were widely spaced and he had not previously caused serious harm. The present harm was grave but was caused by a single blow with a knife brought to the encounter by the deceased, and the jury’s verdict established no intention to cause serious harm. His employment history, family support, remorse and stated resolve to stop drinking supported the conclusion that a determinate sentence would sufficiently protect the public.

4. An eight-year determinate sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court regarded it as aggravating that the appellant and his co-accused left the injured deceased without obtaining assistance, when prompt medical treatment would probably have saved his life. The sentencing comparisons in R v Bowen (1992) 13 Cr App R(S) 89 and R v Knight [1996] 2 Cr App R(S) 384 did not justify a lower sentence on their materially different facts.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence, quashed imprisonment for public protection and imposed eight years’ imprisonment.

• Crown Court at Luton: The appellant was convicted of manslaughter on 12 December 2006 and, on 12 January 2007, sentenced to imprisonment for public protection with a four-year minimum term.