Frankham, R. v

For arson with intent to endanger life, the ordinary sentencing starting point will generally fall within an eight-to-ten-year range. Sentencing remains fact-sensitive. A sentence outside that range must reflect the actual harm, the degree of danger, and all material personal mitigation.

Where damage and injury were limited, and the offender’s acute distress and vulnerability were exceptionally significant, a sentence of 12 years was substantially excessive. A seven-year sentence was appropriate.

The appellant was convicted at Chichester Crown Court of arson with intent to endanger life after setting petrol alight at the front door of a house occupied by six people. No one was injured and the damage was confined to the door and its frame.

He appealed, with the leave of the single judge, against a 12-year sentence. He had acted after discovering his wife’s affair with an employee and had a history of depression, alcohol misuse and vulnerability. The sentencing judge had considered, but rejected, an indeterminate sentence under the dangerousness provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

The issue was whether 12 years’ imprisonment was commensurate with the seriousness of this offence.

Appeal allowed. The court set aside the 12-year sentence and substituted seven years’ imprisonment.

1. The appellant had to be sentenced for the offence of which the jury were sure: arson with intent to endanger life. The prosecution’s prior willingness to accept a plea to the lesser alternative count could not alter that basis.

2. Sentencing authorities for arson with intent to endanger life showed that the usual starting point was eight to ten years’ imprisonment. That range reflected the upheaval and personal turmoil commonly present when an offender commits conduct endangering innocent lives. The court treated Cheeseborough (1982) 4 Cr App R(S) 394, Attorney General's Reference No 66 of 1997 [2000] 1 Cr App R(S) 149, and Attorney General's Reference Nos 78, 79 and 85 of 1998 [2000] 1 Cr App R(S) 371 as illustrating that approach.

3. The 12-year term was very significantly out of kilter with the normal level. This case fell at the bottom of the usual range and was exceptional. The limited damage, absence of injury, the appellant’s genuine distress concerning his wife’s infidelity and the paternity of their child, his vulnerability, and the victims’ indication that they did not oppose early release justified a sentence below the ordinary starting range.

4. The appropriate determinate sentence was seven years’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal and substituted seven years’ imprisonment for the 12-year term: [2007] EWCA Crim 1320.
• Chichester Crown Court: The appellant was convicted on 23 June 2006 of arson with intent to endanger life and was sentenced on 31 October 2006 to 12 years’ imprisonment.