R v Luke Matthews

A finding of dangerousness under Sentencing Act 2020, section 279 may properly rest on a detailed, evidence-based assessment of the current specified offence, relevant antecedents, conduct while on licence, the offender’s role and the pre-sentence report. Previous violence need not be of the same nature or seriousness as the current offence.

An extended sentence does not automatically follow a finding of dangerousness. It remains a fact-sensitive sentencing decision. Where the sentencing judge has properly distinguished co-offenders and given sound reasons, an appellate court will not interfere merely because they received determinate sentences.

The applicant pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence, contrary to section 16A of the Firearms Act 1968. He had organised and directed the discharge of a sawn-off shotgun through the bedroom window of his mother’s tenant. The tenant was present but was not physically injured.

On 12 June 2023, the Common Serjeant of London at the Central Criminal Court imposed an extended determinate sentence of nine years and two months, comprising seven years and two months’ custody and a two-year extended licence period. The judge found the applicant dangerous under section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

Following the single judge’s refusal, the applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal and sought a short extension of time. He contended that the dangerousness finding was wrong and that the extended sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal was refused. Leave for representation and the application for an extension of time were also refused.

2. The sentencing judge had been best placed to assess future risk. He had heard the evidence at both trials, including the applicant’s evidence over 10 days. His assessment was careful and detailed. He had also excluded matters for which the applicant had been acquitted.

3. The dangerousness finding under section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020 was supported by evidence. The applicant had played the leading and organising role in a grave firearm offence while on licence. His sustained Class A drug-dealing, relevant offending history and the pre-sentence report also supported the conclusion that he presented a significant risk of serious harm through further specified offences.

4. The fact that the applicant’s earlier violent offending was of a different and lower level did not preclude a finding of dangerousness in light of the exceptional seriousness of the current offence. The sentencing judge had properly distinguished the applicant from his co-defendants, who had received determinate sentences.

5. Applying the principle identified in R v Bourke [2017] EWCA Crim 2150, an extended sentence is not automatic upon a finding of dangerousness. On these facts, however, the extended sentence was amply justified and was not arguably manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence, refused leave for representation and refused an extension of time.
• Central Criminal Court: On 12 June 2023, imposed an extended determinate sentence of nine years and two months for possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence.