R v Joshua Carney

A life sentence under section 285 of the Sentencing Code is a sentence of last resort. The court must assess the seriousness of the offending, previous convictions, the danger posed and whether its duration can reliably be estimated, and the available alternative sentences. A life sentence may be necessary where the offending is exceptionally grave, the risk to the public has no reliable end-point, and determinate or extended sentences would not provide sufficient protection. In an unduly lenient sentence reference, intervention is justified only where the sentence falls outside the range reasonably open to the sentencing judge. The minimum term must reflect overall seriousness, totality and the avoidance of double counting.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Cardiff to multiple rapes and other serious sexual and violent offences committed against a mother and her teenage daughter during a home invasion. The sentencing judge found him dangerous and imposed life sentences for the rape offences, with a minimum term of 10 years.

The Attorney General sought leave to refer the minimum term as unduly lenient. The applicant sought leave to appeal, contending that a standard determinate or extended sentence should have been imposed instead of life imprisonment. The central issues were whether a life sentence was necessary for public protection and whether the 10-year minimum term was unduly lenient.

1. Both applications were refused. The life sentences and the 10-year minimum term remained in force.

2. The finding that the applicant was dangerous was plainly supported by the pre-sentence material and the circumstances of the offending. Under section 285 of the Sentencing Code, the sentencing judge was required to impose life imprisonment if the seriousness of the offending justified it.

3. A life sentence is a sentence of last resort. Applying Attorney General's Reference No 27 of 2013 (R v Burinskas) [2014] EWCA Crim. 334, the court considered the seriousness of the offences, the applicant's antecedents, the risk and its likely duration, and the available alternatives. The judge had properly considered standard determinate and extended sentences. She was entitled to conclude that neither would sufficiently protect the public.

4. The offending was exceptionally grave and demonstrated a serious and continuing risk of sexual violence. There was no reliable basis for assessing when that risk would end. Licence conditions had not previously restrained the applicant. The fact that a determinate or extended sentence would require release no later than the end of its custodial term justified the conclusion that life imprisonment was necessary.

5. In fixing the minimum term, the judge had to impose the least custodial period consistent with overall seriousness, apply totality, and avoid double counting. Although a somewhat longer minimum term could have been imposed, the 10-year term was not outside the range reasonably open to the judge. Applying Attorney General's Reference No 4 of 1989, 1990 1 WLR 41, the sentence was therefore not unduly lenient.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — in [2022] EWCA Crim 1819, refused leave to refer the sentence as unduly lenient and refused leave to appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Cardiff — on 22 August 2022, following guilty pleas, imposed life sentences for rape offences with a minimum term of 10 years.