Billington, R v

An extended sentence may properly be imposed where the statutory dangerousness assessment is supported by the gravity and pattern of the offending, relevant previous violence, and reliable risk evidence. A sentencing court may treat a late guilty plea as justifying less than full credit, and may give little weight to a reconciliatory statement from a complainant which does not retract the allegations.

Sentencing reasons must be articulated orally in public. Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, reasons must be given in open court in ordinary language and general terms. Written reasons may be distributed, but cannot replace public delivery.

The appellant pleaded guilty to two offences of making threats to kill and assault occasioning actual bodily harm against his partner. The offending involved prolonged violence, threats with a knife, strangulation, and controlling behaviour. It occurred shortly after his release on licence for earlier offending which included domestic violence.

On 26 August 2016, the Recorder imposed an extended sentence of six years under section 226A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, comprising four years’ custody and a two-year extension period. The appellant appealed on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive, challenging the credit for his guilty plea and the assessment of the offending and risk.

The appeal also raised concern that the Recorder supplied written sentencing reasons privately rather than delivering them in public.

1. Appeal dismissed. The extended sentence of six years, comprising a four-year custodial term and a two-year extension period, was lawful and was not manifestly excessive.

2. The court found no error in the Recorder’s assessment of dangerousness under sections 226A and 229 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The offence was committed within weeks of release on licence for similar domestic violence. It was both a repetition and an escalation of that violence. Its sustained nature, use of a knife, credible threats to kill, strangulation, injuries, controlling conduct, alcohol misuse, and the risk evidence entitled the Recorder to find a high risk of violent reoffending and serious harm.

3. The Recorder was entitled to allow a 20 per cent reduction for the late guilty plea. The appellant had not fully co-operated with the police and had not admitted the whole alleged criminality. The complainant’s later reconciliatory statement carried little weight because she did not retract her allegations; the appropriate sentence remained a matter for the court.

4. The court nevertheless held that the Recorder’s failure to deliver sentencing remarks orally in public was a serious failure of good practice. Section 174(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 requires reasons to be given in open court, in ordinary language and general terms. Public delivery promotes transparency, public confidence, understanding by the defendant, and informed consideration of appeals. Providing written copies after public delivery is permissible, but written reasons cannot substitute for it.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against the extended sentence: [2017] EWCA Crim 618.
• Sentencing court: on 26 August 2016, the Recorder imposed a six-year extended sentence under section 226A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.