Cyphus, R v

Where an offender is dangerous and the conditions in section 225(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 are met, a life sentence is mandatory. The seriousness assessment under section 225(2)(b) requires consideration of the offending, antecedents, the danger posed and whether its duration can reliably be estimated, and available alternative sentences. A life sentence may be justified where repeated sexual offending against children, its grave impact, continuing risk and the absence of a reliable risk-duration estimate show that an extended sentence would not adequately protect the public.

The applicant pleaded guilty shortly before trial to six rapes, including four rapes of a child under 13, and one assault by penetration of a child under 13. The offending involved two child victims. The Crown Court at Warwick sentenced him on 13 December 2013 to life imprisonment with an eight-and-a-half-year minimum term.

Almost four years later, he sought an extension of time and permission to appeal his sentence. He accepted that he was dangerous and that the minimum term was not excessive. His sole contention was that life imprisonment was manifestly excessive and that an extended sentence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 should have been imposed instead.

1. The application to extend time was refused and permission to appeal sentence was refused. There was no good and sufficient reason for the inordinate delay of 1,467 days. The applicant had waited almost four years before consulting new solicitors, and there was no evidence that he had been formally advised against an appeal.
2. The sentencing judge was entitled to find the applicant dangerous under section 229 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. That conclusion was not challenged. Under section 225(2), where dangerousness and the statutory conditions are established, the court must impose life imprisonment if the seriousness condition in section 225(2)(b) is met.
3. Applying R v Burinskas [2014] EWCA Crim 334, the seriousness assessment required consideration of the offending, antecedents, the level and likely duration of danger, and alternative sentences. The repeated rape of a child aged 11 to 13 over three years, the grave harm caused, the offending against a second child, and the applicant’s limited victim empathy and victim-blaming supported the life sentence.
4. There was no reliable estimate of when the applicant would cease to present a danger to children. The judge was entitled to conclude that the maximum extended-licence period would not adequately address that risk. Life imprisonment was therefore neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2019] EWCA Crim 538, refused an extension of time and refused permission to appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Warwick — On 13 December 2013, imposed life imprisonment with an eight-and-a-half-year minimum term following guilty pleas to child sexual offences.