Laverick, R. v

When sentencing an attempt, a court may assess the sentence appropriate for the completed offence and then make an allowance because the intended harm did not occur. The seriousness assessment may include the harm intended, as required by Criminal Justice Act 2003.

For dangerousness, members of the public need not comprise the public at large. A person or defined class, including a former partner and potential future partners, may be a relevant group requiring protection where the evidence establishes a significant risk of serious harm from further specified offences.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Newcastle to attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent after dousing his estranged wife with petrol and trying to ignite it. The attempt failed because the matches did not light.

The sentencing judge imposed an extended sentence comprising a 10-year custodial term and a five-year extended licence period. He treated the offence as exceptionally serious and found the appellant dangerous. The appellant challenged both the starting point for the custodial term and the finding that the relevant potential victims were members of the public.

1. Appeal dismissed. The extended sentence was justified both in its custodial term and in the five-year extended licence period.
2. In assessing the attempted offence, the sentencing judge was entitled to consider the sentence that would have been appropriate had the appellant succeeded in setting the victim alight, and then to discount for the fact that the attempt failed. That was a rational approach on these facts. The intended injury would have been extremely serious, and the case could properly be regarded as more serious than the normal range for a category 1 completed offence.
3. The approach was supported by section 143(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which requires the court, when assessing seriousness, to consider harm that the offence was intended to cause. A starting point of 15 years after trial, reduced to 10 years for the guilty plea, was therefore justified.
4. There was ample evidence of dangerousness. The circumstances of the offence, the probation assessment and the psychiatric evidence supported the conclusion that the appellant posed a significant risk of serious harm to his estranged wife and potential future partners.
5. The proposed victim group was not too narrow to comprise members of the public. The court applied the reasoning in Hashi (1995) 16 Cr.App.R (S) 121: protection under dangerousness provisions is not confined to cases where the public generally are at risk, and even a single person may be a relevant person requiring protection.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The appeal against the extended sentence was dismissed.
• Crown Court at Newcastle. The appellant pleaded guilty to attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent and received a 10-year custodial term with a five-year extended licence period.