McGinty, R v

A sentencing judge may find a defendant dangerous for the purposes of section 226 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 despite an absence of previous violence. The inquiry may properly focus on the conduct and attitudes demonstrated in the present offence, and on whether comparable circumstances may recur and cause serious harm.

A risk directed principally towards future female partners may constitute a significant risk of further specified offences. A category 1 guideline starting point may be increased for intoxication, an assault in a public street, and substantial continuing harm to the victim and family. An extended sentence remains discretionary but may be required to protect the public.

The applicant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Preston to causing grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. He had violently attacked his former partner outside her home, causing serious physical and psychological injuries.

He received an extended sentence of 11 years and eight months, comprising eight years and eight months’ custody and a three-year extended licence period. His renewed application for leave to appeal challenged the dangerousness finding, the guideline starting point, and the overall length of sentence.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The sentencing judge was entitled to find that the applicant was dangerous within section 226 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
2. The absence of a history of violence did not prevent that finding. The present offence displayed poor temper control, controlling and manipulative behaviour, distorted thinking, inability to manage rejection, sexual jealousy and excessive violence. Although the offence arose in the particular context of the ended relationship, the judge was entitled to conclude that similar circumstances could recur and provoke a comparable response.
3. There was therefore a significant risk of further specified offences causing serious harm, particularly to future female partners. The pre-sentence report’s conclusion that there was no continuing public risk did not preclude the judge’s assessment on the evidence before him.
4. The offence was correctly treated as category 1 under the applicable guideline. Increasing the starting point from 12 to 13 years was justified by the applicant’s intoxication, the public-street setting, and the serious continuing consequences for the complainant and her family.
5. The judge correctly recognised that an extended sentence was not mandatory. He was nevertheless entitled to find that it was required for public protection. Neither the custodial term after credit for the guilty plea nor the three-year licence period, which was within the range, was manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — in [2018] EWCA Crim 536, refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Preston — following a guilty plea, imposed an extended sentence of 11 years and eight months on 3 August 2017.