Nugent, R v

An indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for public protection may properly be imposed where the sentencing judge has material establishing a significant risk to the public of serious harm from further specified offences. The assessment may draw on medical and probation evidence, the offender’s threats and conduct, personality disorder, substance misuse, and the failure of prior interventions. A doctor’s risk opinion need not be disregarded merely because the doctor is not a psychiatrist. A further probation assessment may also rely on existing reports and other sources without a further interview with the offender.

The appellant pleaded guilty to making a threat to kill. On 16 April 2008, His Honour Judge Niblett, sitting at Lewes, imposed imprisonment for public protection with a minimum term of 18 months, less 140 days spent on remand. The notional determinate sentence was three years.

The appellant appealed only the indeterminate character of the sentence. He contended, among other matters, that medical and probation evidence bearing on dangerousness should not have been relied upon. The court considered whether the material before the sentencing judge established a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm through further specified offences.

1. Appeal dismissed. On the material available to the sentencing judge in April 2008, the judge was fully entitled to conclude that there was a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm through the commission of further specified offences. Indeed, the court held that an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for public protection was inevitable on that material.

2. The evidence supported that conclusion. It included repeated threats to kill or seriously injure strangers, the appellant’s menacing presentation and intimidation of others, a severe antisocial personality disorder with paranoid features, persistent substance misuse, and the absence of any significant benefit from prior imprisonment, treatment, support or supervision. The appellant’s lack of previous convictions for violence did not displace the risk assessment.

3. The sentencing judge was entitled to take account of Dr Perry’s opinion. Dr Perry was a qualified doctor with years of relevant experience in a specialist clinic dealing with drug and alcohol problems. His opinion did not require exclusion merely because he was not a qualified psychiatrist.

4. The further probation report was properly treated as an assessment based on a range of available sources, including earlier assessments made after an interview with the appellant. The absence of a further interview did not undermine its use for sentencing. The court also rejected criticism of the psychiatric report based on the absence of formal diagnostic tools, where that report had been obtained by the appellant’s own solicitors.

5. The court stressed that its decision concerned the risk shown by the material before the sentencing judge. Whether the appellant then remained dangerous and could be released after the minimum term was a matter for the Parole Board.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): appeal dismissed in [2010] EWCA Crim 414.
• Crown Court at Lewes: on 16 April 2008, His Honour Judge Niblett imposed imprisonment for public protection following a guilty plea to making a threat to kill.