Gunn, R v

An extended sentence is excessive where, on the available risk evidence, a substantial determinate custodial sentence will adequately protect the public and provide time for offender management and treatment. A psychiatric report may materially assist that assessment, particularly for a young offender whose future risk depends on insight and treatment.

A late guilty plea does not require the full one-third reduction. Where it is entered on the trial date and the complainant has expected to give evidence, a 25 per cent reduction may be generous.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Derby Crown Court to four counts of rape committed against his former intimate partner over two days. He had no previous convictions. The sentencing judge imposed concurrent nine-year custodial terms and an extended sentence of 14 years on one count, comprising nine years’ custody and a five-year extended licence period.

The appeal challenged the finding of dangerousness, the refusal to adjourn for psychiatric evidence, and the level of credit for the guilty pleas. Before the Court of Appeal, a consultant psychiatrist’s report stated that there was no mental disorder or detectable personality disorder and identified factors capable of reducing future risk.

1. Appeal allowed. The five-year extension period was quashed. The concurrent determinate custodial terms of nine years were preserved.

2. The offending was exceptionally serious. It involved repeated rape, degradation and intimidation of a vulnerable complainant. A severe determinate sentence was plainly required, and the court did not criticise the sentencing judge’s conclusion, on the material then available, that the appellant could properly be assessed as dangerous.

3. However, it would have been helpful to obtain psychiatric evidence before deciding whether an extended sentence was necessary. The subsequently obtained report identified no mental disorder, intellectual impairment or detectable personality disorder. It also identified circumstances capable of reducing risk and the appellant’s capacity to benefit from therapy.

4. Taking the case as a whole, the nine-year custodial term was sufficient to meet the risk to the public. It would allow offender management, treatment and an opportunity for the appellant to address the causes of his offending. An extended sentence was therefore unnecessary and excessive.

5. The guilty pleas were entered on the day fixed for trial. The appellant knew from the outset what he had done, and the complainant had expected until very late in the process that she would have to give evidence. The 25 per cent reduction allowed at sentence was generous; there was no basis for a full one-third reduction.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and quashed the five-year extended licence period.

• Crown Court at Derby: On 3 September 2015, imposed concurrent nine-year custodial terms for four rapes and an extended sentence of 14 years on one count, comprising nine years’ custody and five years’ extended licence.