Wilson-Ford, R v

In assessing the seriousness of violent offending, a domestic context does not reduce seriousness merely because the conduct is directed at a known individual rather than the public. The court may take account of the totality of closely connected offending, previous convictions, offending while on licence, the use of weapons, and serious psychological harm. A sentence above a guideline category range may be justified where those features warrant it and the sentence remains within the statutory maximum.

An extended sentence for a dangerous offender may be upheld where the pre-sentence assessment and offending history provide ample evidence of a significant risk of serious harm. A separate invitation for submissions on dangerousness is unnecessary where the issue is clearly raised by the pre-sentence report and the specified offences.

The appellant pleaded guilty, after the complainant had begun to give evidence, to affray, making threats to kill, and possessing offensive and bladed weapons. The offences arose from two serious incidents within about 12 hours in a domestic setting. During the second incident, he forced entry to the complainant’s home while armed with a knife and threatened to kill her.

At Newcastle Crown Court, HHJ Earl imposed an extended sentence for the threats-to-kill offence, comprising seven years and four months’ custody and a two-year extension period. Concurrent sentences were imposed for the remaining offences. The appellant appealed on the grounds that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the dangerousness procedure was unfair.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

2. The judge was entitled to treat the threats to kill as the most serious offence and to adopt an eight-year starting point to reflect the totality of the connected offending. The appellant forced entry into the complainant’s home, used significant violence, carried a knife and made threats to kill. The resulting psychological harm and the complainant’s flight from her home were grave.

3. The domestic setting did not mitigate seriousness. The court rejected the submission that violence directed at a known person, rather than the wider public, was less serious. The appellant’s history of domestic violence, extensive relevant convictions and commission of the offences while on licence were substantial aggravating features.

4. Although the starting point exceeded the guideline range for intimidatory offences, it was justified by those features and remained within the ten-year maximum for an offence under Offences Against the Person Act 1861, section 16. The eight-month credit for the late guilty pleas was not disputed.

5. The judge was also entitled to find the appellant dangerous and to impose an extended sentence. The pre-sentence report recorded a high risk of serious recidivism and a high risk of serious harm to known adults and the public. There was ample evidence supporting that conclusion. No procedural unfairness arose because dangerousness was squarely raised by the report and by sentencing for specified offences.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Newcastle: on 10 March 2020, imposed an extended sentence of seven years and four months’ custody with a two-year extension period for making threats to kill, with concurrent sentences for the other offences.