Phillips, R. v

An extended licence period under section 226A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 is protective, rather than a further measure of punishment for the seriousness of the offending. Its length must be no longer than is necessary to secure rehabilitation and prevent reoffending. It must also be just, proportionate and not crushing.

The sentencing court should assess what can realistically be achieved through offending-behaviour work, alongside the custodial term, release safeguards and post-release monitoring. An extension fixed at the statutory maximum without sufficient attention to those matters may be manifestly excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Leeds to three attempts to engage in sexual activity with a child and to failing to comply with notification requirements. He had previous convictions for sexual offending against children and committed the new offences while on licence and in breach of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order.

The Recorder imposed concurrent extended determinate sentences under section 226A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, totalling 14 years: six years’ custody and an eight-year extended licence period. The appellant accepted both the custodial term and the finding that he was dangerous. His appeal challenged only the length of the extended licence period.

1. The appeal was allowed to the extent of the extended licence period. The court quashed the eight-year extension and substituted four years. The resulting extended determinate sentence was 10 years, comprising six years’ custody and a four-year extended licence period.

2. An extended licence period is protective. It is not tied to the seriousness of the offending. Its duration must reflect what can realistically be achieved to rehabilitate the offender and prevent further offending. It must be no longer than necessary, just and proportionate, and must not crush the offender.

3. The Recorder had correctly found the appellant dangerous, and the six-year custodial term was not challenged. However, the Recorder had not sufficiently addressed the protective purpose of the maximum extension period. The appellant had not previously received the relevant offending-behaviour interventions, although his earlier sentences had not allowed for them.

4. The present custodial term allowed time for intervention. The pre-sentence report indicated that the appellant had begun to recognise his problematic behaviour and could make progress. Release would also depend on safety and, if earlier than the end of custody, on satisfying the Parole Board. Those safeguards, followed by substantial supervision, meant that four years’ extended licence was sufficient to protect the public.

5. The court treated R v KA [2013] EWCA Crim. 1264 as an illustrative application of the rehabilitation principle, in which an eight-year extension was reduced where the required work could be completed within a shorter period.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence in part and reduced the extended licence period from eight years to four years.

• Crown Court at Leeds: On 3 April 2018, imposed an extended determinate sentence of 14 years, comprising six years’ custody and an eight-year extended licence period.