Attorney-General's Reference No 39 of 2016

An Attorney General’s reference should result in an increased sentence where the original term is significantly too low and therefore unduly lenient. The seriousness of reckless arson must be assessed in its full context. Material factors include premeditation, a campaign of intimidation, the risk created for neighbours and those responding to the fire, offending while on bail or subject to court orders, and the victim’s lasting harm.

Credit for a guilty plea must reflect its timing. A plea entered after earlier denials and several hearings is not a plea at the first opportunity and may justify no more than a 25 per cent reduction. Totality remains relevant when consecutive sentences are imposed.

The Attorney General referred as unduly lenient a total sentence of three years and eight months’ imprisonment imposed at the Crown Court sitting at Truro. The offender had pleaded guilty to reckless arson endangering life, arson of his former partner’s car, and breaches of suspended sentence orders.

The offending followed the end of a long relationship and formed part of a sustained campaign of threats and intimidation. The car was set alight and, later, the offender entered the former partner’s home and started a fire at the foot of the stairs. Although she was absent, the fire endangered occupants of the adjoining house and those who attended it.

The central issue was whether the overall sentence was unduly lenient and, if so, the appropriate substituted determinate sentence.

1. The reference was allowed. The court granted leave and held that the original total sentence was significantly too low and unduly lenient. It quashed the three-year sentence for reckless arson endangering life and substituted six years’ imprisonment.

2. The reckless arson was a very serious example of its kind. It was planned, was part of a premeditated revenge attack and followed a campaign of intimidation. It was committed while the offender was on bail, subject to a suspended sentence order and in breach of a restraining order. The fire created danger for neighbours in the semi-detached house and for those responding to it. The court took account of the grave and continuing effect on the victim.

3. The court considered Attorney General’s Reference No 68 of 2008 (Myrie) [2009] 2 Cr App R (S) 48. That authority provided a sentencing comparison, while its circumstances differed materially. In the present circumstances, a starting point approaching eight years after a trial would have been expected for the reckless-arson count.

4. The guilty pleas were not entered at the first possible opportunity because the offender had initially denied responsibility and pleaded guilty only after several hearings. The proper allowance was no more than 25 per cent.

5. The court retained the consecutive six-month sentence for arson of the car. It retained the two-month sentences for breach of the suspended sentence orders, but made them concurrent. Applying totality, the substituted overall sentence was six years and six months’ imprisonment. The court did not determine dangerousness or impose an extended sentence, as the Attorney General did not pursue that course, but stated that the issue should at least have been expressly addressed below.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On the Attorney General’s reference, the court granted leave, held the sentence unduly lenient, and increased the overall term to six years and six months’ imprisonment.

• Crown Court at Truro: On 26 February 2016, the offender received a total sentence of three years and eight months’ imprisonment for two arson offences and breaches of suspended sentence orders.