Pullen, R. v

A finding that an offender is dangerous did not, under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as amended, automatically require imprisonment for public protection. An extended sentence remained available. The sentencing court nevertheless could conclude that imprisonment for public protection was the only appropriate sentence where the offender presented a clear and significant risk of serious harm through further specified offences.

A sentencing judge could rely on a probation officer’s reconsidered assessment of risk and was also entitled to make an independent assessment on the available material.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Kingston upon Thames Crown Court to destroying property while reckless as to whether life was endangered, common assault, and dangerous driving. He received imprisonment for public protection, with concurrent sentences on the other counts, and a driving disqualification.

He renewed an application for leave to appeal against sentence after refusal by the single judge. He contended that dangerousness had wrongly been treated as requiring imprisonment for public protection, that his record did not establish a significant risk of serious harm, and that undue weight had been placed on a probation report.

The central issue was whether the sentence and the assessment of dangerousness were arguable.

1. Leave to appeal against sentence was refused. Although the sentencing remarks suggested that a finding of dangerousness compelled imprisonment for public protection, that was not the legal position. Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as amended, an extended sentence was an available alternative.

2. On the facts, however, imprisonment for public protection was the only appropriate sentence. The applicant presented a clear danger of serious harm arising from further specified offences. His conduct showed violence towards women, an inability to control his temper when thwarted, and an inability to learn from experience.

3. The reconsidered probation report did appear to proceed on the assumption that the judge had already decided dangerousness. Nonetheless, after reconsideration the probation officer independently concluded that the applicant posed a serious risk of harm. The judge was entitled to rely on that conclusion. He was also entitled to reach his own conclusion, for which there was ample material.

4. The contention that the property damage was merely an unintended consequence of evading the police was untenable. The proposed grounds were unarguable. The record sheet was to be amended to state correctly the Count 1 offence as destroying property while reckless as to whether life was endangered.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused after the single judge had refused leave.
• Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames: The applicant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to imprisonment for public protection, with concurrent sentences for common assault and dangerous driving.