Boswell, R. v

Where the statutory assumption of dangerousness under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 applies, it is displaced only if, in all the circumstances, it would be unreasonable to find a significant risk of serious harm from further specified offences. A sentencing court may rely on a pre-sentence report which considers both the offender’s individual history and structured probation assessment tools.

Where imprisonment for public protection is imposed for one specified offence, section 227(2) requires an extended sentence for a further specified offence. A sentence of no separate penalty for that further offence is unlawful.

The applicant pleaded guilty before Salford Justices to making threats to kill and assault occasioning actual bodily harm after a violent attack on his former partner, during which he made threats with a knife at her throat. He was committed to Manchester Crown Court for sentence.

The Crown Court imposed imprisonment for public protection for the threats offence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, with a minimum term of 15 months. It initially imposed an extended sentence for the assault, but later varied that sentence, without the parties present, to no separate penalty.

The applicant challenged the imprisonment-for-public-protection sentence and its minimum term. Both parties accepted that no separate penalty for the assault was unlawful. The central issues were whether the statutory dangerousness assumption had been displaced and the sentence required for the assault.

1. The appeal was allowed only to correct the sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The challenge to imprisonment for public protection for making threats to kill, and to its 15-month minimum term, failed.

2. The judge correctly applied section 229(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The applicant’s earlier conviction for affray meant that the court had to assume a significant risk of serious harm from further specified offences unless that conclusion would be unreasonable in all the circumstances. The pre-sentence report was properly relied upon. It addressed the circumstances of the offending and the applicant’s history as well as using structured probation tools. Its assessment of a high risk of serious physical and psychological harm, particularly to future female partners, supported the conclusion that the statutory assumption was not displaced.

3. Accordingly, the sentencing judge was bound to impose imprisonment for public protection for the threats offence. The minimum term was not manifestly excessive. The use of a knife at the complainant’s throat while making threats to kill made the offending very serious. A determinate sentence of 30 months, after credit for the guilty plea, would not have been manifestly excessive.

4. The later variation of the assault sentence to no separate penalty was unlawful. Having imposed imprisonment for public protection for the threats offence, the court was required by section 227(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to impose an extended sentence for the assault, also a specified offence. The court quashed the no-separate-penalty order and substituted a concurrent sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment with an extended period of one year.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave to appeal was granted. The appeal against imprisonment for public protection and its minimum term was dismissed, but the sentence of no separate penalty for assault occasioning actual bodily harm was quashed and replaced.

• Manchester Crown Court: Imposed imprisonment for public protection for making threats to kill and later varied the sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm to no separate penalty.

• Salford Justices: Accepted guilty pleas and committed the applicant to the Crown Court for sentence.