Newman, R. v

For the dangerousness assessment under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 225(1)(b)(iii), the sentencing court may find a significant risk of serious harm from further specified offences where grave, closely connected offences show planned home invasions, weapon use, poor self-control and substance misuse. The absence of earlier convictions for violence does not prevent that conclusion.

Progress in custody does not retrospectively render an imprisonment for public protection sentence wrong. Whether the offender has become safe for release is for the Parole Board, which will have fuller and more current information.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Chelmsford Crown Court to two aggravated burglaries committed in October and November 2007. Each involved an invasion of an occupied home and the use of knives. The sentencing judge found him dangerous and imposed imprisonment for public protection, with a minimum term of three years and 96 days after credit for time on remand.

With leave granted out of time, he appealed against sentence. He contended that his record and the offences did not justify a finding of dangerousness. Alternatively, he relied on his positive progress in custody. The issue was whether the dangerousness finding and consequent sentence remained justified.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentencing judge was entitled to find that the appellant was dangerous within section 225(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
2. The offences were grave. They involved planning, entry into occupied homes, knives, and the intimidation and injury of householders. They were committed in quick succession while the appellant was abusing crack cocaine and alcohol. His poor self-control and conduct gave rise to a significant risk that members of the public would suffer serious harm through further specified offences.
3. The absence of a previous conviction for violence did not displace that conclusion. The pre-appeal probation report, including earlier OASYS assessments, confirmed that the appellant presented a high risk of causing serious harm.
4. The appellant’s courses, drug-free tests and compliant conduct in custody were encouraging. They did not undermine the correctness of the sentence imposed. The question whether he had become safe to release was for the Parole Board, which would have more complete information. The court directed that the reports before it be returned to prison for the Parole Board’s consideration.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Dismissed the appellant’s sentence appeal and upheld the imprisonment for public protection sentence: [2010] EWCA Crim 2802.
• Crown Court at Chelmsford: On 11 February 2008, following guilty pleas to two aggravated burglaries, imposed imprisonment for public protection after finding the appellant dangerous under section 225(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.