Pittman, R. v

A finding of dangerousness may rest on a significant risk of serious psychological injury, even where the offender has not physically assaulted a victim. The sentencing court may assess that risk from the offending, previous convictions and expert evidence which recognises a continuing risk capable of management.

Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, all remand time must be credited against the minimum term of an imprisonment for public protection sentence. An offender must not serve longer than the term specified by the court.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at St Albans to voyeurism and to three offences of taking indecent photographs of children. He received imprisonment for public protection with a two-year minimum term.

He appealed against sentence. He challenged the conclusion that he posed a significant risk of serious harm, relying on a forensic psychologist’s report. He also contended that the minimum term failed to credit all 330 days spent on remand. The court additionally considered the absence of a separate sentence for voyeurism.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The court upheld the decision to impose imprisonment for public protection. The appellant’s offending history, including offences connected with his sexual interest in adolescent girls, entitled the judge to find a significant risk of serious personal injury if he remained at large. Serious harm could consist of psychological injury. The expert report did not negate risk; it proposed ways in which an existing risk might later be reduced and managed.

2. Section 240 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 required the full 330 days spent on remand to count towards the minimum term. Applying the principle stated in R v Gordon [2007] Cr App R(S) 60, the court held that the same principle governed an imprisonment for public protection minimum term. The two-year term was therefore varied to two years less 330 days.

3. The judge had imposed no separate penalty for voyeurism. Having found the appellant dangerous, he should have imposed an extended sentence for that offence. The court imposed 12 months’ imprisonment with an extension period of two and a half years, less 330 days, concurrent with the sentence for taking indecent photographs of children.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): allowed the sentence appeal to the limited extent of crediting 330 days of remand custody and imposing a concurrent extended sentence for voyeurism; otherwise upheld imprisonment for public protection: [2009] EWCA Crim 72.

• Crown Court at St Albans: following guilty pleas, imposed imprisonment for public protection with a two-year minimum term.