Batchelor, R v

For reckless arson, sentencing must reflect the substantial danger created by a premeditated retaliatory fire at premises known to be occupied, especially in a block of flats at night. Persistent anti-social noise and resulting stress may provide important mitigation, but they cannot justify suspending a sentence where the seriousness and culpability call for a lengthy immediate custodial term. A guilty plea may attract full credit, but it does not remove the need for a sentence proportionate to the risk to life and property.

The offender pleaded guilty at Lewes Crown Court to arson, being reckless as to whether life would be endangered. He had set fire, using white spirit, to the front door of an occupied flat above his own in a block of flats after prolonged disturbance from loud noise. The occupants escaped and the fire was extinguished before it spread.

The sentencing judge imposed two years’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, with rehabilitation, unpaid-work and compensation orders. The Solicitor General sought leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer the sentence as unduly lenient. The court had to assess the proper sentence for serious retaliatory arson in the light of both aggravating features and substantial personal mitigation.

1. Leave was granted and the reference succeeded. The suspended sentence of two years’ imprisonment was unduly lenient. It was replaced with 38 months’ immediate imprisonment.
2. The offence involved a high degree of culpability. It was a retaliatory and premeditated act: the offender had threatened to petrol bomb the flat the previous day, used an accelerant, and set the fire at the door of premises he knew to be occupied. The dangers were especially grave because it was night-time and the flat was in a block where fire could spread to adjoining homes.
3. The court applied the general sentencing considerations identified in Attorney-General’s Reference No 68 of 2008 (R v Myrie), [2009] 2 Cr App R(S) 48, and noted the continuing relevance of that approach as recognised in Attorney-General’s Reference No 56 of 2015 (R v Hilton), [2016] 1 Cr App R(S) 9. Sentences for arson remain fact-specific, but those aggravating features materially increased seriousness.
4. Prolonged anti-social noise, sleep deprivation, genuine remorse, previous good character, low assessed risk of reoffending and compliance with the original order were substantial mitigation. They reduced a proper starting point of about six years to five years before plea credit. Full credit for the guilty plea produced 40 months. The subsequent compliance justified reducing the substituted sentence to 38 months, but did not justify suspension.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, leave was granted and the suspended sentence was held unduly lenient. It was replaced by 38 months’ immediate imprisonment: [2018] EWCA Crim 2506.
• Crown Court at Lewes: The offender pleaded guilty to arson, being reckless as to whether life would be endangered. He received two years’ imprisonment suspended for two years, with rehabilitation, unpaid work and compensation orders.