Singer, R. v

A finding that an offender is dangerous remains open where the evidence shows an entrenched sexual interest in children, predatory offending and a continuing high risk of serious harm. Age at the likely date of release and ancillary protective measures are relevant, but do not necessarily displace that finding.

Once dangerousness is established, the court must exercise its discretion between the available sentencing regimes. A special sentence may be preferable to an extended sentence where the offender’s age, lengthy custodial term, protective order and statutory safeguards adequately address public protection. An extended sentence is unlawful if its custodial element is below the required four years.

The appellant was convicted at Ipswich Crown Court of 27 historic sexual offences against seven boys aged between nine and 13. The offences were committed while he was a teacher at a boarding school. The sentencing judge imposed determinate sentences totalling 19 years and a consecutive extended sentence on one count, producing an overall custodial structure of 21 years.

He appealed against sentence, challenging both the finding of dangerousness and the appropriateness and legality of the extended sentence. The Crown accepted that the extended sentence was unlawful because its custodial element was less than four years. The central issue was whether the court should impose an extended sentence or a special sentence while preserving the overall sentencing effect.

1. Appeal allowed to a limited extent. The court upheld the finding that the appellant was a dangerous offender. The nature and persistence of the offending, his predatory selection of vulnerable boys, his later French convictions, his absence of recognition or atonement, and the assessed continuing risk of serious harm amply justified that conclusion. His age and the likely age at release did not undermine it.

2. Dangerousness gave rise to a discretion between an extended sentence and a special sentence. In exercising that discretion, the court gave material weight to the appellant’s age before he could be considered for release, the length of the sentence, the indefinite Sexual Harm Prevention Order, and the applicable statutory barring safeguards. Those matters made a special sentence more appropriate.

3. The extended sentence on Count 24 was unlawful because its two-year custodial element was below four years. The error also affected the sentencing judge’s understanding of the release consequences. The court could correct the illegality but could not increase the overall term imposed below.

4. The court quashed the sentences on Counts 24 and 25. It substituted a concurrent determinate sentence of two years’ imprisonment on Count 24 and, on Count 25, a special sentence of 21 years’ imprisonment with an additional licence period of one year under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 236A. The resulting effect was broadly similar to, and no more severe than, that of the original sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal to a limited extent. It upheld the dangerousness finding, quashed the unlawful extended sentence structure on Counts 24 and 25, and substituted a determinate sentence and a special sentence.

• Crown Court at Ipswich: On 11 July 2016, the appellant was convicted of 27 sexual offences. On 9 September 2016, the judge imposed determinate sentences totalling 19 years and a consecutive extended sentence on Count 24.