Jacenciuk, R v

For reckless arson endangering life, sentence must reflect the serious potential consequences of the fire, but also the offender’s actual risk, the extent of damage, personal mitigation and a timely guilty plea. A sentence is manifestly excessive where it substantially exceeds the appropriate level indicated by comparable, more serious offending and the offender is not dangerous and presents a low risk of reoffending.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Inner London to arson, being reckless as to whether life was endangered. He had set fire to bedding in a shared hostel. The fire was promptly extinguished and the property damage was about £200.

He was of previous good character. Psychiatric evidence identified chronic alcohol abuse but no major mental illness. It assessed increased risk when intoxicated or severely stressed, while the pre-sentence report assessed a low risk of reoffending.

On 23 October 2008, the Crown Court imposed three and a half years’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed against sentence, contending that it was manifestly excessive and that insufficient credit had been allowed for his early guilty plea.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the sentence of three and a half years’ imprisonment and substituted a sentence of two years.

2. Lord Justice Rix delivered the judgment of the court. The offending was unquestionably serious. The appellant had started a fire in accommodation occupied by many residents, carried burning bedding, held a knife, and his conduct created a potentially grave danger to life and property.

3. However, the actual damage was limited and the fire was promptly put out. The appellant had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, was of previous good character, and was entitled to full credit for that plea. The sentencing judge had also properly concluded that he was not dangerous and presented a low risk of reoffending.

4. The comparative sentencing authorities showed that three years on a guilty plea was not unusual for more serious arson, including offending involving premeditation, revenge or greater damage. A term of three and a half years following this guilty plea, equivalent to just over five years after trial, was therefore manifestly excessive.

5. The court noted residual concern that the medical experts had not fully explained the appellant’s behaviour. That concern did not displace the assessment that he was not dangerous. The proper determinate sentence was two years’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence in [2009] EWCA Crim 473, quashed the sentence of three and a half years’ imprisonment, and substituted two years’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Inner London: Following a guilty plea to arson being reckless as to whether life was endangered, imposed three and a half years’ imprisonment on 23 October 2008.