Attorney-General's Reference No 24 of 2009

A sentence for attempted arson with intent to endanger life must reflect the grave danger deliberately created, even where no fire or injury results because others intervene. Premeditation, revenge, breach of bail conditions, targeting an occupied terraced house and an attempt to ignite petrol on a person are powerful aggravating features.

Personal mitigation, including previous good character, mental ill health, alcohol dependence, remorse and a guilty plea, may reduce the appropriate term. It cannot justify a sentence which substantially understates the seriousness of a planned attempt to endanger life. Mercy must be exercised consistently with the gravity of the offending.

The offender pleaded guilty at Newport Crown Court to attempting to commit arson with intent to endanger life, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. She had obtained petrol, gone to the new home of neighbours from whom she was barred by bail conditions, sprayed petrol into the property and over one neighbour, and repeatedly attempted to ignite it.

The sentencing judge imposed two years’ imprisonment. The Attorney General sought leave to refer that sentence as unduly lenient. The central issue was whether the judge had given excessive weight to personal mitigation and insufficient weight to the planned and potentially lethal nature of the attempted offence.

1. The court granted leave and allowed the Attorney General’s reference. The sentence of two years’ imprisonment was unduly lenient. It was quashed and replaced with a sentence of five years’ imprisonment.

2. The sentencing judge had approached the case carefully and fairly, but had placed too much weight on the offender’s difficulties and past achievements. He had given insufficient weight to the seriousness of the offending. A starting assessment of 30 months after a contested trial significantly underestimated both what the offender did and what she intended.

3. The attempt was carefully planned and motivated by revenge. The offender deliberately found the victims’ new address despite bail conditions requiring her to stay away. She knew that at least two people were in the terraced house and that neighbouring homes were occupied. She then tried to ignite petrol sprayed into the house and onto an elderly man. The absence of fire and injury resulted from the actions of the victim, neighbours and police, rather than any withdrawal by the offender.

4. Those circumstances placed the offending in a very serious category. In ordinary circumstances, attempted arson with intent to endanger life would attract eight to ten years’ imprisonment after a contested trial. The court allowed for the fact that the offence was incomplete, the guilty plea, and substantial personal mitigation. Even so, a sentence of at least six to seven years would have been appropriate after a not-guilty plea. Applying the one-sixth reduction allowed by the sentencing judge, five years was the least sentence that could properly be imposed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Granted the Attorney General leave to refer the sentence as unduly lenient, quashed the two-year sentence and substituted five years’ imprisonment: [2009] EWCA Crim 1511.
• Newport Crown Court On 19 February 2009, following a guilty plea to attempted arson with intent to endanger life, imposed two years’ imprisonment.