Neate, R. v

A sentencing court considering dangerousness must obtain a pre-sentence report under section 156(3)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, unless it properly considers a report unnecessary under section 156(4). Violent and persistent offending may, on the particular facts, justify that exception. Nevertheless, where dangerousness may arise, the prudent course is ordinarily to obtain a report so that the court is assisted and the defendant can understand and address the issue.

The totality principle requires a sentence that reflects all offending but is no more than just and proportionate. A victim statement may establish serious psychological harm even where no medical report has been obtained.

The applicant sought leave to appeal against an extended sentence imposed at Sheffield Crown Court for robbery and concurrent sentences for five further offences. The offending included two robberies, affray, escape from lawful custody and possession of a bladed article. One robbery involved a knife and had serious psychological consequences for the shop assistant.

He challenged the categorisation of that robbery under the sentencing guideline, the application of the totality principle, and the finding that he was dangerous. His renewed application followed refusal by a single judge. The central issue was whether the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive, including because no pre-sentence report had addressed dangerousness.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The court held that none of the proposed grounds disclosed an arguable sentencing error.
2. The judge was entitled to place the Sheffield robbery in category 1A. Although a medical report would have been preferable, the victim's statement sufficiently demonstrated serious psychological harm. The harm need not have been at the most serious end of the spectrum.
3. The totality principle required a total sentence reflecting all the offending while remaining just and proportionate. The affray and escape from lawful custody were free-standing offences and could not simply be disregarded in comparing the thirteen-year custodial term with the individual sentences. Treating the applicant's being on the run as aggravating the Sheffield robbery did not remove the separate character of the escape. A lower term might also have been available, but the term imposed was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.
4. Under section 156(3)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, a pre-sentence report was required unless the judge considered it unnecessary under section 156(4). On the violent and persistent nature of the offending, its commission during a suspended sentence, and the fact that arrest had not deterred the applicant, the judge was entitled to consider a report unnecessary. No further adjournment had been sought when dangerousness was raised.
5. The court nevertheless made clear that this result should not encourage courts to find dangerousness, or impose the resulting sentence, without a pre-sentence report. Such a report ordinarily assists the court and enables the defendant and representatives to understand and address dangerousness.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence: [2019] EWCA Crim 1580.
• Crown Court at Sheffield On 31 January 2019, imposed a sixteen-year extended sentence for robbery, comprising thirteen years' custody and a three-year extended licence period, with concurrent sentences for the remaining offences.