Philipson, R. v

For a bomb-hoax offence, protection of the public and emergency services, and the need for deterrence, make a custodial sentence generally inevitable. A non-custodial sentence will be rare, if ever, even where the offender has strong personal mitigation.

The sentence must nevertheless reflect the offender’s reduced culpability and the disruption actually caused. An excessive starting point may therefore be reduced on appeal while preserving immediate custody.

The appellant, a 22-year-old man of previous good character, pleaded guilty at the first opportunity to communicating a bomb hoax contrary to the Criminal Law Act 1967. He gave a written warning of a bomb in a shopping-centre car park, but admitted the hoax shortly after police intervention.

At Doncaster Crown Court, the judge imposed 16 months’ imprisonment, apparently from a two-year pre-plea starting point. Psychiatric and pre-sentence reports described substantial mental-health, learning and personal difficulties, genuine remorse, and a low risk of reoffending. The appeal challenged both the starting point and the need for immediate custody, given the limited actual disruption.

1. Appeal allowed as to sentence. The court held that immediate custody was required. Bomb hoaxes potentially cause fear and disruption, and the public and emergency services require protection. Deterrence was of critical importance.

2. Personal mitigation did not justify a community order or suspended sentence. Although the appellant had severe personal difficulties, mental-health problems, remorse, previous good character and a low assessed risk of reoffending, a non-custodial sentence for a bomb-hoax offence would be rare, if ever.

3. The sentencing judge’s two-year starting point was nevertheless manifestly excessive. The appellant’s culpability was limited by the psychiatric evidence. The hoax also caused limited actual disruption: police were called, but there was no closure, search, or other emergency action, and it was treated as a hoax within about half an hour.

4. The appropriate pre-plea starting point was nine months’ imprisonment. Allowing for the guilty plea, the court substituted a sentence of six months’ imprisonment for the 16-month sentence imposed below.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal and substituted six months’ imprisonment: [2008] EWCA Crim 1019 .

• Crown Court at Doncaster: On 10 January 2008, imposed 16 months’ imprisonment following a guilty plea to communicating a bomb hoax.