Campbell, R. v

A finding that an offender is dangerous may be justified by the nature and circumstances of the index offence, including extreme and uncontrolled violence, even if its precise triggering circumstances are unlikely to recur. The sentencing court may reach that conclusion from its own assessment of the trial evidence and need not rely on erroneous material in a pre-sentence report where it has expressly left that material out of account.

A retaliatory and sustained knife attack causing near-fatal injuries was capable, without more, of demonstrating a propensity for extreme violence and supporting an extended sentence.

R v Campbell concerned a renewed application for leave to appeal against an extended sentence imposed at the Crown Court at St Albans. Following a jury trial, the applicant was convicted of wounding with intent and acquitted of attempted murder. The sentencing judge imposed a 15-year extended sentence, comprising 10 years’ custody and a five-year extension.

The applicant accepted the offence category and custodial term. He challenged only the finding of dangerousness and the extended sentence. He contended that the attack followed the victim’s discharge of a firearm and that inaccurate material in the pre-sentence report had tainted the judge’s assessment.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The court held that the sentencing judge was entitled to find the applicant dangerous and to impose an extended sentence.
2. The judge was entitled to reject the submission that the repeated stabbing was an act of self-defence. Although the victim had discharged a firearm in the applicant’s direction shortly beforehand, the stabbing of the victim while on the ground was retaliation. It was a violent and frenzied knife attack which caused near-fatal injuries.
3. The precise circumstances of the offence did not need to be likely to recur. The nature and circumstances of the offending, including the applicant’s complete loss of self-control and propensity for extreme violence, strongly supported dangerousness. The judge was best placed to assess that risk after hearing the trial evidence, and could conclude from the offence itself that the applicant was dangerous.
4. The pre-sentence report’s erroneous references to gang activity and previous domestic violence did not invalidate the assessment. The sentencing judge had expressly disregarded those matters and made his own factual findings from the evidence. The applicant’s less serious previous convictions did not undermine the conclusion, since the extreme violence of the current offence independently justified it.
5. The 10-year custodial term, which the applicant did not challenge, properly reflected the applicable sentencing category, aggravating previous convictions, and mitigation arising from the victim’s use of a firearm. The five-year extension was therefore upheld.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence refused in [2018] EWCA Crim 175.
• Crown Court at St Albans: following conviction for wounding with intent on 7 April 2017, the applicant received a 15-year extended sentence on 5 May 2017, comprising 10 years’ custody and a five-year extension.
• Single judge: permission to appeal against sentence was refused, leading to the renewed application.