Laxmidas, R v

Under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, a life sentence may be imposed for a serious life-punishable offence only where the offender presents a significant risk of serious harm from further specified offending and the seriousness of the offence or associated offending justifies life imprisonment.

A significant risk is more than a possibility and must be assessed from the current offending and the offender’s history and circumstances. Where those conditions are met, the availability of imprisonment for public protection does not preclude a discretionary life sentence.

The appellant pleaded guilty to three counts of rape. In January 2007, His Honour Judge Rivlin QC imposed concurrent life sentences and specified a minimum term of four years and six months, less time spent on remand.

The offending involved prolonged and repeated sexual assaults, violence, threats with a kitchen knife and the detention of an 18-year-old victim. The judge also considered the appellant’s previous violent offending, psychiatric material and probation assessment.

On appeal, the appellant accepted that he was dangerous. He contended that imprisonment for public protection, rather than life imprisonment, was the appropriate indeterminate sentence. The central issue was whether the seriousness of the offending justified a life sentence under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Court upheld the concurrent life sentences. The sentencing judge was entitled to conclude that the statutory conditions for life imprisonment were met.
2. Section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 required conviction of a serious offence punishable with life imprisonment, a significant risk to the public of serious harm through further specified offences, and seriousness sufficient to justify life imprisonment. Serious harm included death or serious physical or psychological injury under section 224(3).
3. Applying R v Lang [2006] 1 WLR 2509, a significant risk means more than a possibility. The assessment properly took account of the nature and circumstances of the rapes, the appellant’s violent history, the probation assessment of a high risk of harm to women, and his limited appreciation of the gravity of his conduct.
4. The judge’s conclusion on seriousness was also open to him. The assaults were prolonged, repeated and grossly violent. The victim was confined, threatened with a long-bladed knife and subjected to a succession of rapes. Those circumstances justified life imprisonment rather than imprisonment for public protection.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2008] EWCA Crim 2669, dismissed the appeal against sentence and upheld the life sentences.
• Sentencing court: In January 2007, His Honour Judge Rivlin QC imposed concurrent life sentences for three counts of rape and specified the minimum term.