Beesley & Anor, R. v

Dangerousness for an indeterminate public-protection sentence must be assessed by reference to the information available when sentence is imposed. Later progress in custody will ordinarily not undermine a properly made finding of dangerousness, although it may assist the Parole Board when considering release.

A sentencing court may consider information wider than admissible evidence and is guided, but not bound, by risk assessments in pre-sentence reports. Where an offender has no psychiatric or mental condition, the facts of the offence, previous offending and the OASys assessment will usually be the primary material. Further psychological assessments will rarely assist unless the case is exceptional.

These conjoined appeals concerned sentences of imprisonment or detention for public protection under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Beesley and Coyle pleaded guilty to manslaughter after a planned and exceptionally violent attack. At the Central Criminal Court, each received imprisonment for public protection with an eight-year specified period. They challenged the dangerousness findings and the specified period. Beesley relied on a later psychological assessment.

Rehman had received detention for public protection in 2007 for possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear or violence and unlawful wounding. His renewed application relied on his substantial progress in custody, psychological reports and his subsequent release on parole.

The common issues were the reception and relevance of fresh information on a sentencing appeal, and whether it cast doubt on the contemporaneous findings of dangerousness.

1. The appeals of Beesley and Coyle were allowed only as to the specified period. The appeal against Rehman's sentence was not reopened. The sentencing judges were entitled to find all three appellants dangerous.

2. The assessment of dangerousness required consideration of the current offence, previous offending and any pattern, the offender's social circumstances, and the offender's attitudes and emotional state. The court followed Lang [2005] EWCA Crim 2864. A sentencing judge is guided, but not bound, by risk assessments in reports, and must permit submissions before differing from one.

3. Under section 229 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the assessment is based on relevant information, rather than admissible evidence alone. It may therefore include adverse material not proved by criminal convictions.

4. The court may receive updated material on a sentencing appeal without rigidly applying section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. That flexible practice applies to information relevant to dangerousness. However, a disputed new psychological assessment may require directions and the application of section 23.

5. The appellate question remained whether the fresh material would have altered the sentencing judge's assessment at the time of sentence. Subsequent improvement in custody normally does not affect the propriety of an indeterminate public-protection sentence, although it may bear on release or, exceptionally, a determinate term.

6. Neither Beesley's later assessment nor Rehman's substantial improvement displaced the original conclusions. The seriousness and escalating character of their offending, and the information before the sentencing judges, justified the dangerousness findings. Coyle's participation in planned violence involving torture and mutilation likewise justified the finding.

7. The judge had not fully reflected the accepted basis of the pleas when fixing the notional determinate sentence for Beesley and Coyle. It was reduced from 16 to 14 years, producing a specified period of seven years less time on remand.

8. Where there is no psychiatric or mental condition, the offence, antecedents and pre-sentence report, including OASys, will generally be the primary material. Psychological reports purporting to predict future serious offending will rarely assist at sentence unless exceptional circumstances exist.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The conjoined appeals were determined in [2011] EWCA Crim 1021. Beesley and Coyle succeeded only on the length of their specified periods. Rehman's renewed application was refused.

• Central Criminal Court. Beesley and Coyle were sentenced in June 2009 to imprisonment for public protection, with eight-year specified periods, following guilty pleas to manslaughter.

• Central Criminal Court. Rehman was sentenced in January 2007 to detention for public protection, with a 15-month minimum term, for firearm and wounding offences. A single judge refused leave to appeal in 2007.