Mahon, R v

Where exceptionally serious serial offending falls outside the direct provision of sentencing guidelines, the court must assess culpability, actual and foreseeable harm, and proportionality by reference to the statutory purposes of sentencing. Under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 142, punishment and protection of the public may properly predominate where rehabilitation is unlikely.

On sentence appeal, the question is whether the sentence falls outside the permissible range. A sentence at the top of that range is not manifestly excessive merely because it is severe.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the first stage to three robberies and two dwelling burglaries involving occupants. Within days of release from a lengthy custodial sentence, he used false claims of police or security authority to enter the homes of elderly victims. The robberies involved threats and violence; the burglaries caused serious fear and distress.

The Crown Court found him dangerous and imposed an extended determinate sentence of 20 years under Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 226 A: a 15-year custodial term and a five-year extension period. The appellant challenged only the pre-plea starting point of 22½ years, contending that it was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The extended determinate sentence was correctly imposed. The finding that the appellant was dangerous for the statutory regime was unassailable.

2. The sentencing judge had not expressly referred to the robbery and burglary guidelines. That omission did not make the sentence wrong. The offending was an extreme and unusual example of repeated home invasion offending against vulnerable elderly people, committed despite repeated lengthy sentences and almost immediately after release. The guidelines did not directly provide the answer.

3. The proper assessment was therefore one of seriousness, based on high culpability and high actual and foreseeable harm. The court was entitled to take account of the grave and lasting loss of safety likely to result when elderly people are threatened in their homes.

4. Applying section 142 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the dominant purposes were punishment and protection of the public. The appellant's entrenched history permitted the conclusion that rehabilitation was unlikely and that, on release, he was overwhelmingly likely to offend again.

5. The appellate court had to make the same proportionality assessment and decide whether the 22½-year pre-plea term lay within the proper range. It was at the top of the available determinate range for non-lethal offending, but it was not above the permissible range in this exceptional case. The resulting 15-year custodial term, after full credit for plea, was not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) dismissed the sentence appeal: [2018] EWCA Crim 959.
• Crown Court sentenced the appellant on 4 September 2017 to an extended determinate sentence of 20 years, comprising 15 years' custody and a five-year extension period.