Miller, R

A finding of dangerousness does not require an extended sentence. Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the court retains discretion to impose a determinate sentence where that sentence can properly meet the risk presented by the offender. A sentencing judge must consider that intermediate option and must not treat the choices as confined to life imprisonment or an extended sentence.

The court must also obtain and consider a pre-sentence report unless it considers one unnecessary in the circumstances.

The appellant was convicted in the Crown Court at Liverpool of robbery and false imprisonment arising from a planned and violent attack on an elderly victim. The victim was robbed, restrained and confined in a cellar. The appellant received concurrent extended sentences of 17 years, comprising 15 years’ custody and a two-year licence extension.

With leave of the single judge, he appealed against sentence on the sole issue whether an extended sentence should have been imposed. The appeal raised whether, despite dangerousness, the sentencing judge should have considered a lengthy determinate sentence.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the extended sentences and substituted concurrent determinate sentences of 15 years’ imprisonment for robbery and false imprisonment.
2. Section 156 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 required the court to obtain and consider a pre-sentence report unless it considered one unnecessary in the circumstances. No report had been obtained before sentence, and the judge had not explained why it was unnecessary.
3. A finding of dangerousness did not automatically justify an extended sentence. Section 226A(4) preserved a sentencing discretion. Following R v Burinskas [2014] EWCA Crim 334, the judge was required to consider the intermediate option of a determinate sentence where life imprisonment was not justified.
4. The sentencing judge had not considered whether a lengthy determinate sentence could adequately address the appellant’s risk. That was an error. Although the offences were planned, extremely serious and violent, the appellant’s age, lack of previous violence, and the available risk material meant that the risk of future serious harm could properly be met by concurrent 15-year determinate sentences.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — by [2018] EWCA Crim 500, allowed the sentence appeal, quashed the extended sentences and substituted concurrent determinate terms of 15 years’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Liverpool — following convictions on 25 April 2017 for robbery and false imprisonment, imposed concurrent extended sentences of 17 years on 27 April 2017.