Fadipe, R. v

A sentencing judge assessing dangerousness may consider a probation officer’s risk assessment, but is not bound by it. The judge must assess all the available information, including the offender’s record and the circumstances of the offence. An appellate court will not normally interfere where the judge has applied the relevant principles to those facts.

Earlier firearms-sentencing decisions that are not formal guidelines do not impose a fixed maximum sentence. Public concern about armed offending may be relevant, but sentence remains an individual assessment. Youth and demonstrated capacity for reform may justify a reduction where the imposed term is excessive.

The appellant, aged 17 at the time of the offence, was convicted after trial at Inner London Crown Court of possessing a loaded self-loading pistol with intent to endanger life and possessing ammunition without a certificate. He had discarded the weapon while fleeing from police in a residential area.

The sentencing judge imposed detention for public protection and specified a minimum term of four years and six months, less 238 days on remand. The appellant challenged both the finding of dangerousness and the nine-year notional determinate term. The appeal concerned the proper weight to be given to the pre-sentence report, the appellate approach to dangerousness, and the appropriate sentence for this firearm offence.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The court upheld the finding that the appellant was dangerous, but reduced the specified minimum term from four years and six months to three years and nine months, less 238 days served on remand.

2. A probation officer’s assessment is only part of the material available to the sentencing judge. The judge was entitled to identify tensions within the pre-sentence report and to assess risk in light of the appellant’s persistent offending, his access to firearms, the loaded lethal weapon carried in a residential area, and his lack of appreciation of the gravity of the offence.

3. The judge had seen the appellant during the trial and giving evidence. The court found no error in the judge’s approach and no error in the conclusion that there was a significant future risk of potentially fatal harm. Subsequent evidence of good progress in custody could assist a future release decision, but could not retrospectively invalidate the assessment at sentence.

4. The earlier firearms authorities, Attorney General’s Reference No 2 of 2000 (Hines) [2001] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 9 and Attorney General’s Reference Nos 58 to 66 of 2002 [2003] EWCA Crim. 636, were not ordinary guideline cases and did not establish a fixed ceiling. Their factual contexts also differed materially. Public anxiety about young men carrying firearms in urban areas was relevant, although the court did not purport to reset a general sentencing range.

5. Having given proper weight to the appellant’s youth and evidence of potential reform, the court held that the nine-year notional determinate term was too long. The appropriate starting point was seven years and six months, producing the reduced minimum term.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2008] EWCA Crim 1027, upheld the dangerousness finding but allowed the appeal to reduce the specified minimum term.
• Inner London Crown Court: On 16 August 2007, convicted the appellant after trial and imposed detention for public protection with a specified minimum term of four years and six months, less time on remand.