Sartain, R. v

An appellate court may uphold a finding of dangerousness and the use of an extended sentence, yet reduce the sentence where the aggregate custodial term is excessive. The sentencing judge may assess dangerousness from the offender’s record, substance misuse, violent offending and the assessment evidence. A disparity with a co-offender does not establish error where the offenders’ roles, mitigation and total offending differ.

Where concurrent extended sentences are imposed for multiple serious offences, the total sentence must reflect the overall criminality and proper credit for guilty pleas. If it does not, the court may quash and substitute proportionate extended sentences under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 226A.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Basildon to inflicting grievous bodily harm, two robberies and nine fraud offences. The robberies involved seriously injured victims. Most of the offending occurred while he was on bail.

On 18 April 2017, the judge found the appellant dangerous and imposed concurrent extended sentences under section 226A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Each comprised 15 years’ custody and a five-year extension period. The appellant appealed against sentence, challenging dangerousness, offence categorisation, parity with a co-offender and totality.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The court upheld the finding that the appellant was dangerous. The judge had considered his offending history, misuse of alcohol and drugs, the serious violence involved, his intoxication when offending, and the pre-sentence material. She was entitled to reach that conclusion.
2. The judge was also entitled to place both robberies in the categories she selected. Although the evidence about the second robbery required inference, it supported the conclusion that significant force and group action had been used. It was therefore open to the judge to impose an extended sentence under section 226A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 for a principal robbery and concurrent sentences for the remaining offences.
3. The comparison with Reason did not establish impermissible disparity. Reason had been the principal offender in one robbery and had a worse record, but he was sentenced for that offence alone and had positive mitigation. The appellant was sentenced for all the offences, with all but the first committed while on bail.
4. Nevertheless, the overall sentence was too long. The proper total notional custodial term after a trial was about 18 years. Allowing full credit for guilty pleas, the appropriate extended sentence comprised 12 years’ custody and a five-year extension period.
5. The court quashed the sentences for the two robberies and substituted concurrent extended sentences of 17 years for each, comprising 12 years’ custody and a five-year extension period. The remaining concurrent sentences were unchanged.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The appeal against sentence was allowed to the extent that the robbery sentences were quashed and replaced with shorter concurrent extended sentences.
2. Crown Court at Basildon. On 18 April 2017, the appellant received concurrent extended sentences under section 226A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, each comprising 15 years’ custody and a five-year extension period.