Sandhu, R. v

Sentencing judges must not rely on newspaper or online summaries of other sentencing decisions. Such material may be incomplete or inaccurate, whether or not a definitive guideline applies.

Where no directly applicable guideline exists, sentence must be determined under the statutory principles of culpability and harm. An analogous Sentencing Council guideline may provide a useful check. Multiple fire-safety offences may properly be assessed globally where their combined effect creates a grave foreseeable risk. High culpability and a risk of death in a multi-occupancy building can justify immediate custody.

The appellant, who managed a 45-bedroom hotel, pleaded guilty in Sheffield Magistrates’ Court to five fire-safety offences under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. The failures concerned the fire alarm, risk assessments, evacuation procedures, emergency lighting and staff training.

He was committed to Sheffield Crown Court and received concurrent sentences of eight months’ imprisonment. He appealed on the basis that immediate custody was manifestly excessive, relying on the absence of deliberate risk creation, steps said to have been taken, the periods of offending, his guilty plea and personal mitigation. The central issue was whether the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The concurrent eight-month sentences were neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

2. The court reaffirmed the approach in Thelwall [2016] EWCA Crim. 1755. Newspaper articles, web pages and other unofficial summaries of sentences are impermissible sentencing material. They are not authorised or full reports and may mislead the court. That remains so where no definitive guideline applies.

3. In the absence of a directly applicable guideline, the proper starting point was Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Sentence depended on the offender’s culpability and the harm caused, intended or foreseeably caused. The health and safety guideline did not govern these offences, but could properly be used as a check on the sentence reached by applying the statutory principles.

4. The appellant’s culpability was high. He had failed over a prolonged period to perform basic safety checks, respond adequately to known system failures, or act with urgency after warnings from staff and advisers. The foreseeable harm was at the highest level: fire in a multi-occupancy hotel created a risk of death, multiple deaths and serious injury.

5. The sentencing judge was entitled to aggregate the five offences, assess their combined culpability and potential harm, and impose equal concurrent sentences. A twelve-month starting point before full credit for the guilty plea was appropriate. Given the seriousness of the combined failures, neither suspension nor appellate alteration of the immediate custodial sentence was justified.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against sentence: [2017] EWCA Crim 908.
• Crown Court at Sheffield: on 8 May 2017, imposed eight months’ imprisonment on each of five offences, to run concurrently.
• Sheffield Magistrates’ Court: on 13 April 2017, the appellant pleaded guilty and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence.