Bond, R v

A sentence of imprisonment for public protection under Criminal Justice Act 2003 section 225 could be imposed only if the applicable statutory condition was met. Where the relevant condition required a notional minimum term of at least two years, the court had no power to impose that sentence if a proper assessment of the offence produced a lower minimum term.

The notional determinate sentence must reflect the particular circumstances of the threat and the offender. A sentencing comparison is not determinative where its facts, including the offender's history of serious violence and the circumstances of the threats, are materially different. An appellate court will ordinarily respect a sentencer's danger assessment where the correct principles and relevant facts have been considered.

The appellant was convicted at Ipswich Crown Court of making a threat to kill. The sentencing judge found him dangerous and imposed imprisonment for public protection, fixing a notional determinate sentence of five years and a minimum term of 30 months.

He renewed his application for leave to appeal against sentence after refusal by a single judge. He challenged both the finding of dangerousness and the five-year notional determinate sentence. The central issue was whether the statutory conditions for imprisonment for public protection were met once the appropriate determinate sentence had been assessed.

1. Appeal allowed. The court granted leave, quashed the sentence of imprisonment for public protection and substituted a sentence of two years' imprisonment.

2. The judge's conclusion that the appellant was dangerous in the statutory sense was not impugnable. The judge had heard the evidence of the two mental-health professionals and considered the pre-sentence material. He was entitled to give substantial weight to that material. Applying the appellate restraint stated in R v Johnson & Others [2007] 1 WLR 585, the court found no error in the danger assessment.

3. However, danger alone did not authorise imprisonment for public protection. Under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the relevant condition in section 225(3B) required a notional minimum term of at least two years. The alternative condition in section 225(3A) did not apply because the appellant had not been convicted of an offence in Schedule 15A.

4. The five-year notional determinate sentence was manifestly excessive. The sentencing judge had relied on R v Tucknott [2001] Cr App R (S) 93, but that case involved a record of serious violence, including manslaughter, and materially different threats. The court also treated R v Birch [2001] EWCA Crim 2400 as illustrating the need to sentence according to the particular circumstances.

5. The appellant had sought help at hospital. His threats were intended to be believed, but the circumstances were capable of showing the beginnings of insight. The appropriate determinate sentence was two years. The resulting notional minimum term was below two years, so the statutory condition was not met and the court lacked power to impose imprisonment for public protection. A restraining order was also made to protect the cousin.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted leave to appeal against sentence, allowed the appeal, quashed the imprisonment for public protection sentence and substituted two years' imprisonment.
• Ipswich Crown Court: Following conviction for making a threat to kill, imposed imprisonment for public protection with a 30-month minimum term.