Gill, R. v

Where the custodial term properly imposed for a specified violent or sexual offence is below four years, the statutory threshold for an extended sentence is not met. An extended sentence must therefore fall away, even where the offender presents a significant risk of serious harm and an extension would assist public protection.

A sentencing court must also scrutinise an agreed basis of plea and ensure that its acceptance serves the interests of justice. On appeal, sentence must be assessed faithfully on the accepted basis of plea, with proper but not necessarily full credit for a guilty plea.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Bristol Crown Court to wounding contrary to section 20 after the prosecution accepted an agreed basis of plea. The basis asserted that the complainant had become aggressive, had taken a knife, and that the appellant stabbed him without intending really serious harm.

His Honour Judge Lambert imposed four years’ imprisonment and an extended sentence after finding the appellant dangerous. The appellant challenged the custodial term as manifestly excessive and contended that, if the proper term was below four years, the statutory conditions for an extended sentence were unavailable.

1. Appeal allowed. The four-year custodial term was manifestly excessive on the accepted basis of plea. The Court quashed both that term and the extended sentence.

2. The Court stressed that a trial court has a duty to examine an agreed basis of plea and satisfy itself that accepting it is in the interests of justice. The plea in this case appeared difficult to understand, but the Court could not investigate its acceptance because it lacked an explanation and transcript. It therefore sentenced on the basis as accepted.

3. Although the appellant’s antecedents, psychiatric material and history of violence supported the finding of a significant risk of serious harm, the proper custodial term was less than four years. Following the amendments to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the statutory four-year threshold also restricted the availability of extended sentences. The Court had no power to impose the extension once it concluded that the appropriate term was below that threshold.

4. The appellant’s violent record, the seriousness of the wounding and limited credit for his delayed guilty plea required a substantial immediate term. The mitigating circumstances in the accepted basis of plea, and his attempt to address drug addiction before sentence, were also material. The substituted sentence was three years’ imprisonment, less 134 days spent on remand.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted three years’ imprisonment, less time on remand.
• Crown Court at Bristol: His Honour Judge Lambert imposed four years’ imprisonment and an extended sentence after the appellant pleaded guilty to a section 20 offence.