Knight, R. v

Under Criminal Justice Act 2003 section 225, life imprisonment for a dangerous offender is exceptional. It should be reserved for offences of particular gravity or offenders of particularly high culpability. Where imprisonment for public protection adequately protects the public, that sentence should ordinarily be used instead.

The minimum term must reflect the overall seriousness of professionally planned armed robberies, including their number, preparation, violence and financial motivation. A substantial minimum term may remain justified even where life imprisonment is not.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Snaresbrook to three robberies, attempted robbery and firearms offences. He asked for further armed robberies and a conspiracy to rob to be taken into consideration.

He received life imprisonment on the robbery and attempted-robbery counts, with a seven-year minimum term, and concurrent determinate sentences for the firearms offences. He appealed against both the life sentences and the minimum term. The central issues were whether life imprisonment was justified and whether the seven-year minimum term was excessive.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The court substituted concurrent sentences of imprisonment for public protection for the life sentences on the three robbery counts and the attempted-robbery count. The minimum term remained seven years, less 334 days spent on remand. The concurrent sentences for the other offences were unchanged.

2. Applying R v Kehoe [2009] 1 Cr App R(S) 9, life imprisonment under section 225 is reserved for exceptional cases in which the offence is particularly grave or the offender's culpability is particularly high. Imprisonment for public protection ordinarily supplies the necessary protection against the danger posed by the offender.

3. The appellant was dangerous, and the seriousness of the planned commercial armed robberies was considerable. However, the offending did not fall within the exceptional category justifying life imprisonment rather than imprisonment for public protection.

4. The court rejected the challenge to the minimum term. The appellant had participated in seven professionally planned armed robberies and an attempted robbery, all directed to substantial financial gain. In that context, the seven-year minimum term was appropriate and not excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal to the extent of replacing life imprisonment with imprisonment for public protection, while retaining the seven-year minimum term.
• Crown Court at Snaresbrook: On 25 October 2007 imposed life imprisonment on the robbery and attempted-robbery counts with a minimum term of seven years, plus concurrent sentences for firearms offences.