Dawkins, R v

For an adult convicted of a serious specified offence, the dangerousness assessment under Criminal Justice Act 2003 section 229(3) requires consideration of the available information about the offences, any relevant pattern of behaviour, and the offender. The statutory assumption of significant risk may be displaced only where it would be unreasonable to retain it. If the court finds a significant risk of serious harm from further specified offences, section 225(3) requires imprisonment for public protection. Later appellate guidance does not make an earlier sentence manifestly excessive where the sentencing judge correctly applied the statutory provisions in force.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Winchester Crown Court to committing an offence with intent to commit a sexual offence and to breaching an antisocial behaviour order. On 27 September 2005, the judge imposed imprisonment for public protection, with a minimum custodial term of 10 months, for the sexual offence.

The appellant appealed against sentence. He contended that the judge had treated imprisonment for public protection as virtually mandatory and had failed properly to exercise the discretion under section 229(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. He further relied on subsequent guidance in R v Lang [2005] EWCA Crim 2864. The central issue was whether the original sentence was manifestly excessive because the dangerousness provisions had been wrongly applied.

Disposition

1. The appeal was dismissed. The sentencing judge correctly applied Chapter 5 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

2. The offence was both a specified and a serious offence. The appellant was over 18. The judge therefore had to decide whether there was a significant risk to the public of serious harm caused by further specified offences under section 225(1)(b).

3. Section 229(3) imposed a rebuttable assumption of such risk because the appellant had prior convictions for specified offences. The judge was entitled not to disapply that assumption. The seven previous specified offences, the circumstances of the current offence, and the pre-sentence report’s assessment of a high risk of serious harm provided sufficient information for that conclusion.

4. Once the statutory risk threshold was met, section 225(3) required the imposition of imprisonment for public protection. The brief sentencing remarks nevertheless showed that the judge had applied the statutory scheme.

5. The court considered the later observations in R v Lang [2005] EWCA Crim 2864, but held that they could not be used to criticise as manifestly excessive a sentence already imposed where the judge had correctly applied the governing statute.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed the appeal against sentence and upheld the imprisonment for public protection.

• Winchester Crown Court — on 27 September 2005 imposed imprisonment for public protection, with a 10-month minimum term, for the sexual offence.