R v Elias Arberry

Where an offender is dangerous, a life sentence may be justified if the seriousness of the offending requires it. The sentencing court may properly rely on the sustained brutality of the offences and a history of violence towards intimate partners when assessing future risk.

A court need not adjourn sentencing for further psychological or psychiatric evidence where it has sufficient expert material, has considered the offender’s mental-health difficulties as mitigation, and a more precise diagnosis would not affect the sentencing issues. The same risk assessment is material whether the proposed disposal is a life sentence or an extended sentence.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Taunton Crown Court to four rapes, two assaults by penetration and wounding with intent, committed against his partner during sustained and severe violence. On 14 October 2022, the Crown Court imposed concurrent life sentences after finding him dangerous under Sentencing Act 2020, section 308. It specified a minimum term of nine years and 315 days.

After a single judge refused leave, the applicant renewed his application to appeal sentence. He also sought an adjournment to obtain further evidence concerning autism spectrum disorder and other mental-health issues. He contended that life sentences were excessive, that dangerousness had been inadequately assessed, and that an extended sentence would have sufficed.

1. The court refused the adjournment and refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence. There was no arguable error of law or approach in the sentencing judge’s decision.
2. The finding that the applicant was dangerous within section 308 of the Sentencing Act 2020 was unassailable. The gravity and sustained brutality of the offending could itself justify that finding. It was reinforced by his history of violent offending against women in intimate relationships and controlling behaviour.
3. Having made that finding, the judge was entitled under section 285 of the Sentencing Act 2020 to conclude that the seriousness of the offences justified life sentences. The court accepted that the minimum-term calculation under section 321 was legally correct and was not challenged.
4. The sentencing judge had adequate material concerning the applicant’s mental health, including a detailed report from a consultant forensic psychiatrist. He had treated those difficulties as mitigation. He was not required to adjourn merely to obtain a more precise diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, because it would not have altered the questions he had to decide.
5. Further evidence would not justify adjourning the renewed application. Risk was relevant to an extended sentence as well as to life imprisonment, and the court was unpersuaded that additional reports could affect the result. The applicant’s later letter of remorse had no probative value on the issues before the court.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence refused: [2023] EWCA Crim 1052.
• Crown Court at Taunton: on 14 October 2022, concurrent life sentences were imposed for rape, assault by penetration and wounding with intent, with a minimum term of nine years and 315 days.
• Single judge: leave to appeal against sentence was refused, leading to the renewed application.