Brown, R v

Where imprisonment for public protection will adequately protect the public, a life sentence remains reserved for offences of particular gravity or offenders of particularly high culpability. A serious attempted murder may satisfy the dangerousness criterion without justifying a life sentence, particularly where the attack was brief and spontaneous. In fixing the minimum term for imprisonment for public protection, the court should reflect the determinate sentence that would otherwise be appropriate, while accounting for aggravating features, the victim’s lasting harm, a guilty plea, co-operation and other mitigation.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Preston to attempted murder after cutting the complainant’s throat with a knife during an appointment at his flat. The victim suffered serious physical injury, a permanent scar and significant psychological harm.

Ryder J imposed life imprisonment with a minimum term of 10 years, less 241 days on remand. The judge found the appellant dangerous, relying on psychiatric and probation reports which identified a significant risk of serious harm to women.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the dangerousness finding, contended that imprisonment for public protection rather than life imprisonment was proportionate, and argued that the minimum term was excessive.

Decision

1. The court allowed the appeal in part. The judge was entitled to find that the appellant was dangerous and that the conditions for imprisonment for public protection were met. Authors of risk reports could take account of information supplied to them, and a moderate risk of violence could be consistent with a significant risk of serious harm. The irrational and unexplained nature of this serious attack, together with the appellant’s conduct towards women, independently justified the finding despite the absence of significant violent antecedents.

2. Life imprisonment was nevertheless disproportionate. R v Kehoe [2009] 1 Cr App R (S) 9, endorsed in R v Wood [2009] EWCA Crim 651, established that life imprisonment should be reserved for particularly grave offending or particularly high culpability where imprisonment for public protection can protect the public. This attack was deeply serious, but it was spontaneous, relatively brief and not sustained or ferocious. Imprisonment for public protection was sufficient.

3. The minimum term of 10 years was excessive. The appropriate guideline starting point was 15 years. The knife, and the serious and enduring psychological harm, were aggravating features. The guilty plea, full co-operation with police and the appellant’s emergency call were mitigating features. A determinate sentence after trial would have been 17 or 18 years, reduced to 14 years for mitigation. The life sentence was quashed and replaced with imprisonment for public protection with a minimum term of seven years, less 241 days on remand.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2011] EWCA Crim 2256, allowed the appeal in part, quashed the life sentence and substituted imprisonment for public protection with a seven-year minimum term less time on remand.
• Crown Court at Preston: On 7 February 2011 the appellant pleaded guilty to attempted murder. On 18 March 2011 Ryder J imposed life imprisonment with a 10-year minimum term, less 241 days on remand.