Clarke, R. v

Where the dangerousness condition in section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 is made out, an imprisonment for public protection sentence is required unless a life sentence is passed. A lack of previous convictions does not prevent such a finding. The assessment may properly rest on the exceptional seriousness and uncontrolled nature of the offending, together with relevant psychiatric evidence demonstrating a continuing risk of serious harm.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne to wounding his wife with intent. The attack was sustained and life-threatening. Psychiatric evidence described dependency, impaired rationality and impulsive violent and self-harming behaviour, while concluding that a bipolar disorder was in remission and not relevant to the offence.

On 13 April 2007, the sentencing judge imposed imprisonment for public protection with a minimum term of four years, less time on remand. He found that the applicant posed a significant risk of serious harm to his wife. Following the single judge’s refusal, the applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal against sentence. The central issue was whether the judge was entitled to find that the statutory dangerousness condition was made out.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The court held that the sentencing judge was fully entitled to find that the applicant presented a significant risk of serious harm to his wife for the foreseeable future.
2. Section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 contemplates that imprisonment for public protection may be imposed on an offender of previous good character. Where the dangerousness condition is established, and a life sentence is not imposed, the statutory sentence is required.
3. The offence was exceptionally serious. It involved an uncontrolled and sustained attack, with conduct displaying grave disregard for the safety of others. Although unplanned, its severity was capable of supporting the assessment of future dangerousness.
4. The judge was also entitled to rely on the psychiatric evidence. It described the applicant’s vulnerability, dependence in relationships, lack of cognitive and social skills, impaired rationality and impulsive violence. Those matters supported the conclusion that he remained a danger in any continuing or future relationship.
5. Accordingly, once dangerousness was properly found, the imprisonment for public protection sentence inevitably followed. The unchallenged determinate equivalent was eight years’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — on a renewed application after the single judge’s refusal, refused leave to appeal against the imprisonment for public protection sentence: [2007] EWCA Crim 2580.
• Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne — on 13 April 2007, imposed imprisonment for public protection with a four-year minimum term, less time on remand, for wounding with intent.