Jewitt, R. v

For the dangerousness test under section 226 A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the sentencing judge must independently decide whether the offender presents a significant risk of serious harm through further specified offending. A pre-sentence report that uses a different risk category, or fails to address the statutory test, is of limited assistance and does not prevent that finding. Where the offending and relevant convictions justify the finding, an extended sentence may be necessary for the protection of the public.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Cardiff Crown Court to causing grievous bodily harm contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He received an extended sentence under section 226 A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, comprising seven years’ custody and a two-year extension period.

He made a renewed, late application for leave to appeal against sentence. He contended that he did not present a significant risk of serious harm and that the pre-sentence report’s medium-risk assessment required a determinate sentence. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge had been entitled to find dangerousness and impose the extended sentence.

1. The court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal, refused an extension of time, and made a 28-day loss of time order.

2. The sentencing judge had applied the correct test under section 226 A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. On the serious knife wounding, committed after the applicant obtained a knife, and his extensive record including serious violence, the judge was entitled to find a significant risk that members of the public would suffer serious harm through further offending.

3. The pre-sentence report did not undermine that conclusion. Its medium-risk category did not address the statutory question, which concerns a significant risk of serious harm. The report was therefore of limited assistance. In any event, dangerousness is for the judge to determine independently.

4. The judge was also entitled to regard an extended sentence as necessary for public protection. The application had no merit and was substantially late without good reason. Having given the applicant prior warning, the court ordered that 28 days already served should not count towards his sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2020] EWCA Crim 570, refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence, refused an extension of time, and imposed a 28-day loss of time order.

• Cardiff Crown Court: On 9 November 2018, imposed an extended sentence of nine years, comprising seven years’ custody and a two-year extension period, following the applicant’s guilty plea to causing grievous bodily harm.