R v Luke Ibbetson

A sentencing judge must follow applicable sentencing guidelines under section 59 of the Sentencing Act 2020 unless doing so would be contrary to the interests of justice. An appellate court should not infer reliance on an unproven allegation where the sentencing judge’s stated reasons do not mention it. Dangerousness may be established by an escalating pattern of offending, weapon use, conduct in custody, weapons found on arrest, persistent underlying causes and a rational expert risk assessment. Youth and immaturity remain relevant, but do not prevent an extended sentence where there is no foreseeable significant change in behaviour and a substantial risk of serious harm persists.

The applicant pleaded guilty to robbery and unlawful wounding arising from a stabbing during a planned transaction. The sentencing judge imposed an extended sentence of 10 years for robbery, comprising seven years and two months’ custody and an extended licence period, with a concurrent three-year sentence for wounding.

After the single judge refused leave, the applicant renewed his application. He argued that the robbery sentence was excessive and that the dangerousness finding improperly relied on an unproven murder allegation mentioned in the pre-sentence report. The central issues were whether the sentencing guideline had been correctly applied and whether the extended sentence was justified.

The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. Neither ground was arguable, and the sentencing judge’s approach could not fairly be impeached.

1. Sentencing guideline. The judge was entitled to treat robbery as the lead offence and wounding as an aggravating feature addressed by a concurrent sentence. The applicant accepted that the robbery guideline had been followed. Section 59 of the Sentencing Act 2020 obliged the judge to follow the applicable guideline unless doing so would be contrary to the interests of justice. There was no such reason here, and the Court of Appeal considered itself in the same position.
2. Unproven allegation. The pre-sentence report referred to the applicant’s arrest and release under investigation for murder. The court did not decide whether reliance on that matter would have been permissible under section 308(2) of the Sentencing Act 2020. The sentencing judge’s reasons did not refer to it, and the court declined to infer reliance on a point that had not been expressed.
3. Dangerousness. The finding was independently and amply justified by the admitted escalation of offending, the applicant’s propensity to use weapons, his knifepoint robbery, violence in custody, the gratuitous nature of the present offending shortly after release, and weapons found at his home. The detailed, rational and persuasive probation assessment supported the conclusion that he posed a substantial risk of serious harm from further specified offences.
4. Youth and maturity. Although youth and immaturity were relevant mitigating considerations, nothing indicated a significant behavioural change in the foreseeable future. The extended sentence was therefore appropriate and was not arguably manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). In [2022] EWCA Crim 1293, the court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence.
• Single judge. Refused the applicant’s initial application for leave to appeal against sentence.