Voice, R v

In sentencing for reckless endangerment of an aircraft, the court must sentence on the agreed factual basis of the guilty plea. Where a powerful light was used for another purpose and was not deliberately directed at an aircraft, custody was not required despite the grave potential consequences of the offence. Strong personal mitigation and the fact-specific nature of the recklessness justified a substantial financial or community disposal instead.

Where the offender has already served a short custodial period, the loss of liberty may make a further unpaid-work requirement or fine inappropriate. A conditional discharge may then be the proper substituted sentence.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Snaresbrook Crown Court to recklessly endangering the safety of a helicopter. He had shone a powerful torch from his flat while responding to persistent antisocial behaviour outside. Its broad glare affected a pilot approaching a nearby heliport, but the agreed basis of plea stated that the light was not deliberately directed at the helicopter.

The judge imposed four months’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed against sentence, contending that immediate custody was disproportionate on the accepted facts and in light of his mitigation. The central issue was whether custody was required for this instance of reckless endangerment.

Disposition

1. The appeal against sentence was allowed. The four-month term of imprisonment was replaced by a conditional discharge for 12 months.

2. The Crown Court had correctly accepted the written basis of plea. It was not an unrealistic basis which contradicted the available evidence. The torch gave a broad, exceptionally bright light rather than a confined beam, and the helicopter left the affected area without the light following it.

3. The sentencing judge was entitled to stress the seriousness of endangering an aircraft, the appellant’s recklessness, the proximity of the heliport and the potential for catastrophic consequences. The Court of Appeal did not criticise that approach. However, the decisive feature was the Crown’s express acceptance that the light was neither aimed nor deliberately shone at the helicopter. The appellant had been using it for another purpose, albeit recklessly as to the danger created.

4. On that factual basis, and taking account of the appellant’s remorse, favourable personal mitigation and low risk of reoffending, immediate imprisonment was unnecessary. A substantial fine or significant community penalty would ordinarily have been appropriate.

5. The appellant had served 18 days in custody. That loss of liberty made an unpaid-work requirement inappropriate, and no other community penalty was necessary. The court therefore imposed a 12-month conditional discharge. It ordered a contribution of £548.44 towards prosecution costs and left the appellant to bear his own appeal costs.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted a 12-month conditional discharge.

• Crown Court at Snaresbrook: On 28 March 2008, imposed four months’ imprisonment following the appellant’s guilty plea to recklessly endangering the safety of an aircraft.