Ciechelski, R v

A finding that an offender is dangerous may be justified by a sustained pattern of alcohol-fuelled violence, disregard of court orders and serious weapon offending. The court may give limited weight to personal mitigation where there is no expert evidence establishing a causal link between emotional difficulties and the offending, particularly where the offender has a longer history of similar conduct.

In assessing whether a custodial term is manifestly excessive, the court considers the total criminality. Concurrent sentences may properly reflect offences which would otherwise have warranted consecutive terms.

The appellant admitted two breaches of a restraining order and later pleaded guilty at Isleworth Crown Court to wounding with intent, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and possession of an offensive weapon. On 16 July 2015, he received an extended sentence of eight years for the wounding offence, comprising five years’ custody and a three-year extended licence period. Concurrent sentences were imposed for the remaining offences.

He appealed against sentence. He challenged the finding that he was a dangerous offender, the length of the extended licence period, and the five-year custodial term. He relied principally on emotional difficulties after he had himself been the victim of serious crime, depression, alcohol misuse and efforts to obtain professional help.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentencing judge was entitled to find that the appellant was a dangerous offender for the purposes of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and to impose an extended sentence for wounding with intent.
2. The appellant’s record showed repeated intoxication, violence and non-compliance with court orders. His conduct at the public house demonstrated a willingness to use a machete after a trivial incident. He admitted intending to cause serious harm, and more serious injury was avoided only through the victims’ actions. Those matters, together with the pre-sentence report’s assessment, supported a significant risk of further specified offending causing serious physical harm.
3. The three-year extended licence period was appropriate. The court refused leave to appeal on the dangerousness grounds because neither the finding nor the licence period disclosed an arguable error of principle.
4. The sentencing judge’s failure expressly to mention the appellant’s personal mitigation was unfortunate, but it did not show that the five-year custodial term was manifestly excessive. There was no expert evidence establishing a causal link between the appellant’s depression and emotional distress and these offences. The court was also entitled to place the offending in the context of his earlier alcohol-related violence and his deliberate decision to drink, obtain a machete and return to confront the victim.
5. The aggravating features justified a sentence high within the applicable guideline range. The concurrent structure also had to reflect the seriousness of the breaches of the restraining order, which would ordinarily have merited consecutive sentences. A total term of seven and a half years after trial, reduced to five years for prompt guilty pleas, was not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed the appeal against sentence. It refused leave to advance the renewed dangerousness grounds and rejected the challenge to the custodial term.
• Crown Court at Isleworth — on 16 July 2015 imposed an eight-year extended sentence, comprising five years’ custody and a three-year extended licence period, for wounding with intent. Concurrent sentences were imposed for the other offences.