Meddlicott, R. v

A life sentence for a dangerous offender remains a sentence of last resort. In deciding whether it is justified, the court must assess the seriousness of the offences, antecedents, the danger to the public and its likely duration, and the available determinate or extended-sentence alternatives.

A life sentence may nevertheless be proper where an exceptionally serious and sustained course of offending, its impact on victims, previous similar offending, and the absence of any reliable estimate of continuing danger show that no alternative sentence adequately meets public protection and penal objectives.

The appellant pleaded guilty to 11 robberies and eight offences of possessing an imitation firearm. Most robberies involved an imitation firearm, threats to staff and substantial psychological harm to victims.

At Liverpool Crown Court, His Honour Judge Everett imposed a life sentence with a minimum term of seven years. The judge assessed the appropriate post-trial determinate sentence as 21 years, reduced to 14 years for guilty pleas and confessions.

The appellant challenged the life sentence in principle and as excessive. He accepted that he was dangerous, but submitted that a determinate or extended sentence should have been imposed and that the 21-year assessment was excessive.

1. The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The court upheld the life sentence and the seven-year minimum term in principle.

2. Following R v Burinskas [2014] EWCA Crim 334, a life sentence remains a sentence of last resort after the removal of the IPP sentence. The inquiry under section 225(2)(b) of the CJA 2003 requires consideration of the seriousness of the offences, previous convictions, public danger and its likely duration, and the available alternatives.

3. The appellant plainly satisfied the dangerousness requirement. His current offending comprised an exceptional and sustained campaign of 11 serious robberies, usually with a realistic imitation firearm. It targeted vulnerable workers, caused lasting psychological harm and followed a similar previous robbery conviction.

4. The absence of physical injury and the use of an imitation weapon did not materially reduce the gravity of the offending. The psychological harm was serious and, in some cases, required clinical treatment.

5. The sentencing judge was entitled to find that neither a determinate nor an extended sentence was a proper alternative. There was no reliable estimate of how long the appellant would remain a danger to the public. The court also upheld the judge’s assessment that 21 years was the appropriate determinate sentence before credit for plea.

6. The sentence was corrected so that the 283 days spent on remand count towards the minimum term.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Sentence appeal dismissed. The life sentence and seven-year minimum term were upheld, subject to correction for 283 days on remand.
• Liverpool Crown Court: On 17 April 2015, His Honour Judge Everett imposed a life sentence with a minimum term of seven years for the robbery and imitation-firearm offences.