Kambarani, R v

A sentencing court may find a defendant dangerous under section 226 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 where the evidence establishes a significant risk of further specified offences causing serious harm. The assessment may properly rest on the circumstances and planning of the offending, the defendant’s controlling and distorted attitudes, and a thorough pre-sentence assessment. The absence of relevant previous convictions or earlier violence does not prevent that conclusion where the evidence shows a substantial future risk.

The applicant was convicted at Luton Crown Court of attempted murder, criminal damage and stalking after attacking his estranged wife’s aunt. He received an extended sentence of 25 years, comprising 22 years’ custody and a three-year extension period, together with concurrent sentences for the other offences and an indefinite restraining order.

He renewed his application for leave to appeal against sentence following a single judge’s refusal. He did not challenge the 22-year custodial term. The sole issue was whether the sentencing judge had been entitled to find him dangerous under section 226 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

1. Application for leave to appeal refused. The sentencing judge was entitled to conclude that the applicant was dangerous within section 226 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and the extended sentence was proper.
2. The judge had considered the relevant mitigating material, including the psychiatric evidence, the applicant’s depression and medication, his lack of relevant convictions and violent history, and his asserted remorse. The Court rejected the criticism that the pre-sentence report was undermined because its author had not seen the psychiatric report. It accurately recorded the applicant’s mental condition, and the Court considered that the report would not have altered the assessment.
3. The pre-sentence report was a proper basis for finding a high risk of reoffending and a high risk of serious harm to the applicant’s estranged wife, the victim and a future partner who sought to end a relationship. It identified planned and escalating conduct: stalking and criminal damage had failed to achieve control, after which the applicant resorted to attempted murder.
4. The sentencing judge had also been entitled to rely on the ferocity and calculated nature of the attack, and on the applicant’s irrational anger and wish to control others. Those matters supported the conclusion that there was a significant risk of further specified offences causing serious harm if similar circumstances arose.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence refused: [2018] EWCA Crim 491.
• Crown Court at Luton — on 27 February 2017, the applicant was convicted of attempted murder, criminal damage and stalking and received an extended sentence of 25 years.