Roche, R. v

A finding of dangerousness justifying imprisonment for public protection may be supported by the current offence, relevant previous convictions and an escalation in the seriousness of weapon use. A guilty plea and other mitigation must nevertheless be reflected in the notional determinate sentence and consequential minimum period. Where the minimum period is excessive, the appellate court may vary it while upholding the finding of dangerousness and the sentence of imprisonment for public protection.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Snaresbrook to robbery and possession of a bladed article. He had threatened the complainant with a kitchen knife while taking a mobile telephone and wallet.

He had four previous robbery convictions, including offences involving threats to use a knife. The sentencing judge imposed imprisonment for public protection for robbery, with a minimum period of three years less time spent on remand, and imposed no separate penalty for the bladed-article offence.

On his sentence appeal, the appellant challenged both the finding of dangerousness and the notional determinate sentence used to fix the minimum period.

1. Appeal allowed to a limited extent. The court upheld the sentence of imprisonment for public protection but reduced the minimum period from three years to two and a half years, subject to credit for time on remand.

2. The sentencing judge had properly found that the appellant was dangerous. The present robbery involved a knife held towards the complainant’s throat. It had to be assessed with the appellant’s previous robberies and the escalation in his use or threatened use of a knife. Those matters entitled the judge to conclude that there was a significant risk that the appellant would cause serious harm to the public by committing further offences.

3. The court accepted, however, that the minimum period was too long. It assessed the appropriate determinate sentence at seven years. Allowing for the mitigation and the guilty plea reduced that sentence to five years. The appropriate minimum period was therefore two and a half years.

4. The appellant would not be considered for release until he had served that revised minimum period.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal to the limited extent of reducing the minimum period, while upholding imprisonment for public protection.
• Crown Court at Snaresbrook: On 26 March 2009, imposed imprisonment for public protection for robbery with a minimum period of three years, less 100 days on remand. No separate penalty was imposed for possession of a bladed article.