REX v ROSS LAMBERT

A sentencing court may impose a sentence above the suggested range for a guideline category where the offence has very serious aggravating features. In assessing an arson offence, the court may take account of planning, the use of an accelerant, the danger of fire spreading, the impact on the victim, and the offender’s antecedents and assessed risk.

Where those features justify an increased starting point, an extended sentence will not be manifestly excessive merely because the starting point exceeds the guideline range.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Liverpool Crown Court to arson contrary to section 1(1) and (3) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. He and another man targeted the complainant’s car because of a false community allegation. The appellant smashed its window and the other man threw a petrol bomb inside, causing £13,000 damage.

The Recorder imposed a nine-year extended sentence, comprising four years and six months’ custody and a four-year-and-six-month extension period. The appellant appealed with limited leave, contending only that the Recorder had adopted a starting point two years above the top of the applicable guideline range and that the resulting sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The nine-year extended sentence was not manifestly excessive.
2. The relevant definitive guideline required the offence category to be determined by culpability and harm. The attack involved a high degree of planning and the use of an accelerant. Although treated as a Category 2 harm case, it could properly have been regarded as Category 1, or as being on the cusp between Categories 1 and 2.
3. The suggested range for Category 2A was one to four years’ custody, but the Recorder was entitled to move above the starting point because of the very serious aggravating features. These included a pre-planned and targeted petrol-bomb attack in a residential area, the risk of wider harm from an uncontrollable fire, the substantial effect on the complainant, and the appellant’s serious violent antecedents and assessed danger to the public.
4. The Recorder was entitled to select a six-year determinate starting point and then reduce it by 25 per cent for the guilty plea, producing a custodial term of four years and six months. Given the appellant’s dangerousness, the extension period of four years and six months was justified. The restraining order was also necessary and proportionate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was dismissed.
• Crown Court at Liverpool: On 16 March 2022, following a guilty plea to arson, the Recorder imposed a nine-year extended sentence, a 12-year restraining order, and a surcharge order.