Stanley, R v

Under Criminal Justice Act 2003 section 225, a life sentence for a dangerous offender requires the court to decide whether the seriousness of the offence, taken with associated offences, justifies life imprisonment. The availability of imprisonment for public protection means that considerations derived from the former life-sentence regime do not determine that question.

In fixing the custodial term, the court must assess the offending as a whole, including associated violence, relevant antecedents and the gravity of injury. Where a dangerous offender is convicted of a non-serious specified offence, an extended sentence under section 227 is required.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Kingston to wounding with intent, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and possession of cocaine and heroin. He had stabbed a man after seeing him with the appellant’s former girlfriend, and then assaulted her. He had a previous conviction for a serious, similarly motivated assault and was on licence when the offences were committed.

The sentencing judge found him dangerous, imposed life imprisonment under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 for the wounding, with a four-year minimum term, and imposed concurrent sentences for the remaining offences. The appeal concerned whether life imprisonment was justified, the appropriate minimum term, and the sentence required for the assault.

Appeal allowed in part. The life sentence was replaced by imprisonment for public protection. The minimum term was reduced, and the sentence for the assault was replaced by a concurrent extended sentence.

1. Section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 required the court to consider whether the seriousness of the offence, together with any associated offences, justified life imprisonment. Although the appellant posed a significant risk of serious harm, the stabbing and associated assault, while serious, fell well short of the seriousness required for a life sentence. The availability of imprisonment for public protection safeguarded the public, so earlier considerations relevant to discretionary life sentences were no longer decisive. The appropriate sentence for the section 18 offence was imprisonment for public protection.

2. The court assessed the custodial term by considering the stabbing, the vicious associated assault, and the appellant’s previous serious violence arising from morbid jealousy. The slight physical injury to the stabbing victim remained relevant. A custodial sentence of ten years after a trial was appropriate. After credit for the guilty plea and conversion to the minimum term, the minimum term was three years and four months, less 119 days spent on remand.

3. The assault occasioning actual bodily harm was a non-serious specified offence. Since the appellant was dangerous, section 227 required an extended sentence: 18 months’ custody and an 18-month extension period, concurrent with the sentence for wounding. That substitution did not increase the period he was bound to serve.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2008] EWCA Crim 655, allowed the sentence appeal in part; substituted imprisonment for public protection for life imprisonment, reduced the minimum term, and substituted a concurrent extended sentence for the assault.
• Crown Court at Kingston: Following guilty pleas, imposed life imprisonment under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 for wounding with intent, with a four-year minimum term, and concurrent sentences for the other offences.