T, R. v

For an offender under 18 convicted of a specified offence, an extended sentence under Criminal Justice Act 2003 may be imposed where there is a significant risk that further specified offending will cause serious harm. A significant risk is more than a mere possibility. The court may assess risk using a wide range of information, including the offence, a pattern of behaviour and information about the offender.

Dangerousness does not automatically require an extended sentence. A determinate sentence remains available where it gives adequate public protection. An extended sentence is necessary where the custodial term and resulting licence period would not adequately protect the public.

The respondent, aged 15 at the time of the offence, was convicted at the Crown Court at Sheffield of wounding with intent and pleaded guilty to possessing a bladed article in a public place. He was acquitted of attempted murder.

On 10 August 2018, the judge imposed five years’ detention for the wounding and no separate penalty for the bladed-article offence. The offender sought leave, out of time, to appeal on the ground that the term was manifestly excessive. The Solicitor General sought permission under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer the sentence as unduly lenient.

The central issue was whether the offender was dangerous under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and, if so, whether public protection required an extended sentence.

1. The court granted the Solicitor General permission to refer the sentence, quashed the five-year detention sentence for wounding with intent, and substituted an eight-year extended sentence under section 226B of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. It comprised a five-year custodial term and a three-year extension period. It granted an extension of time but refused the offender leave to appeal against sentence.

2. The five-year custodial term was not arguably manifestly excessive. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat the offence as category 1 under the assault guideline. The injuries amounted to greater harm and the use of the knife established higher culpability. The judge had properly reduced the adult starting point to reflect the offender’s age, immaturity, welfare and exceptionally difficult personal circumstances.

3. Wounding with intent was a specified offence. Under section 222B, the issue was whether there was a significant risk to the public of serious harm from further specified offending. R v Lang [2006] 2 Cr App R (S) 3 established that the risk must be more than a mere possibility. Section 229 permitted consideration of a very wide range of information about the offence, any behavioural pattern and the offender.

4. The sustained stabbing, the offender’s aggression and violence before the offence, and his continued aggressive behaviour in custody established dangerousness. This was not an isolated, impulsive incident of the type considered in R v Choudhury [2016] 2 Cr App R (S) 41.

5. Dangerousness alone did not compel an extended sentence. However, a determinate sentence would have provided licence supervision only until the offender was just over 20. That protection was inadequate. Supervision into his early adulthood was necessary to protect the public.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) In [2018] EWCA Crim 2464, the court granted the Solicitor General’s reference, quashed the determinate detention sentence and imposed an extended sentence. It refused the offender leave to appeal against sentence.

• Crown Court at Sheffield The offender was convicted on 18 July 2018 and, on 10 August 2018, sentenced to five years’ detention for wounding with intent under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.