R v Craig Andrew Gladwin

A discretionary life sentence for a dangerous sexual offender is justified where the sentencing court applies the required risk analysis and cannot identify when the offender will cease to present a significant risk of serious harm. The risk assessment may properly reflect a pattern of violent sexual offending, including strangulation, detention and offending against successive partners. The Court of Appeal will not interfere where the sentencing judge’s analysis is sound, the risk assessment is not unduly pessimistic, and the sentence is not manifestly excessive.

The applicant pleaded guilty to three rapes against three women who had been his partners. The offending occurred over about two and a half years and included strangulation, loss of consciousness and forcible detention. The third rape was committed while he was on bail for the first two offences.

The Crown Court at Kingston upon Hull imposed a discretionary life sentence on the lead count, with a minimum term, and concurrent determinate sentences on the other counts. A single judge refused permission to appeal. The renewed application concerned whether the life sentence resulted from an unduly pessimistic assessment of future risk and was therefore manifestly excessive.

Application refused. The court dismissed the renewed application for permission to appeal and upheld the discretionary life sentence.

1. The sole issue was whether the assessment of future risk was unduly pessimistic and whether the resulting sentence was manifestly excessive. The categorisation of the rapes and the calculation of the determinate sentence were not in issue.
2. The sentencing judge had correctly undertaken the analysis required by Crown v. Burkinstas. The offending involved three violent sexual assaults against successive partners, strangulation of two victims, loss of consciousness, forcible detention and offending while on bail. The recorder was entitled to conclude that a discretionary life sentence was justified because he could not say when the applicant would cease to represent a significant risk of serious harm to women.
3. The Court of Appeal agreed with the recorder’s analysis. There was nothing arguably wrong with the risk assessment or the conclusion that a life sentence was required. It was not reasonably arguable that the assessment was unduly pessimistic or that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 23 June 2022, the renewed application for permission to appeal was refused and dismissed: [2022] EWCA Crim 985.
2. Crown Court at Kingston upon Hull: On 1 November 2021, Mr Recorder Woolfall imposed a discretionary life sentence for the lead rape, with concurrent sentences for the other offences.