Nasuna, R v

An extended licence period must be justified by positive evidence of continuing risk and of what can realistically be achieved during that period. A long extension will usually require clear support from the offender’s record, a pre-sentence report or psychiatric evidence. This is a flexible sentencing approach, not a rigid formula. Where an extended period is justified but its length is excessive on the available material, an appellate court may substitute a shorter period.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Manchester Crown Court to two counts of attempted rape and five counts of indecent assault on boys aged nine. He received an extended sentence under section 85 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, comprising six years’ custody and four years’ extended licence.

More than six years later, he sought an extension of time and leave to appeal only the length of the extended licence period. The central issue was whether the evidence justified a four-year extension.

1. The court extended time, granted leave and allowed the appeal in part. It quashed the four-year extended licence period and substituted an extension period of two years.

2. The offending was sustained and serious. The sentencing judge was entitled to conclude that the ordinary licence period was insufficient for public protection and rehabilitation. Although the psychiatric report recorded remorse, good behaviour and supportive family circumstances, it also disclosed unexplained sexual offending against more than one young boy and an unusual concentration of friendships with young boys. That provided a real basis for concern about continuing risk.

3. The court applied the approach in R v Nelson [2001] EWCA Crim 2264. An extension period must be supported by the evidence available, and its length should reflect what can realistically be achieved during it. That guidance did not impose a straitjacket; its essential requirement was positive evidential support for the concern addressed by the extension.

4. The sentencing judge’s reasons sufficiently identified the concern justifying an extended sentence, although they did not explain why the extension should be four years. The unavailable pre-sentence report might have provided further relevant material, but, taking the available circumstances together, four years was too long. A two-year period was proper.

5. The court stressed that granting leave after a delay of six years and four-and-a-half months was exceptional. There is a substantial need for finality in sentence appeals.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Time was extended exceptionally, leave was granted, and the appeal was allowed to the extent of substituting a two-year extended licence period.

• Crown Court at Manchester Crown Square: The applicant was sentenced to an extended sentence under section 85 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, comprising six years’ imprisonment and four years’ extended licence.