Scott, R. v

A sentence of detention for public protection requires a sound evaluation that the offender presents a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm through further specified offences. Where the statutory assumption does not apply, consideration of the relevant statutory matters does not itself justify that conclusion.

In fixing a determinate alternative sentence, the court must give proper weight to the offender’s age and a timely guilty plea, while reflecting the seriousness of arson that causes substantial damage and risks harm to occupants of adjoining property.

The appellant, aged 18, pleaded guilty at Kingston upon Thames Crown Court to burglary and arson, being reckless as to whether life was endangered. Ten further burglaries were taken into consideration.

He had entered a terraced house, stolen electrical goods and jewellery, and set fire to property in a rear bedroom. The fire caused damage estimated at between £30,000 and £40,000 and created a risk to children in the adjoining house.

On 24 July 2007, the Crown Court imposed detention in a young offender institution for public protection, with a three-year minimum period less 97 days on remand. The appellant appealed against both the public-protection sentence and the six-year notional determinate sentence.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentence of detention in a young offender institution for public protection was quashed and replaced with a determinate sentence of five years’ detention, less 97 days already served on remand.

2. The appellant had committed a specified violent offence. However, the statutory assumption did not apply. The sentencing judge was therefore required to assess whether the appellant created a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm through further specified offences.

3. Although the judge had taken account of the relevant matters under section 229, the Court of Appeal held that the evaluation of risk was erroneous. The circumstances did not justify the conclusion that detention for public protection had to be imposed.

4. The notional determinate sentence of six years was also excessive. It gave insufficient credit for the appellant’s timely pleas and his age. The arson remained a serious offence because it caused substantial damage to a home and created a substantial risk to people in adjoining property.

5. The concurrent three-year detention sentence for burglary, taking account of the ten further burglaries, remained in force. The total sentence was therefore five years’ detention in a young offender institution.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal, quashed detention for public protection and substituted five years’ detention in a young offender institution, less 97 days on remand.
• Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames: On 24 July 2007 imposed detention in a young offender institution for public protection, with a three-year minimum period, and a concurrent three-year sentence for burglary.