R v Solomon Abdul

An extended sentence is lawful only if the statutory eligibility conditions are met: the offender has a qualifying prior conviction, or the appropriate custodial term would be at least four years. In assessing dangerousness, the court may consider information before it, including trial evidence and admissions, but must not rely adversely on a disputed fact unless it has been fairly resolved. A sentencing error of that kind does not require the dangerousness finding to be quashed where proved offending independently establishes a significant risk of serious harm from further offending. Planned repeated attacks, escalation and knife use may establish that risk despite youth and no previous violent convictions. A sentence may be upheld as not manifestly excessive where it reflects separate criminality and harm to separate victims.

The appellant pleaded guilty to two aggravated burglaries committed against separate complainants and was sentenced by the Crown Court at Woolwich on 13 February 2020. The sentence comprised an extended sentence of three years on count 1 and a consecutive extended sentence of eight years and two months on count 2. The appellant sought an extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence. The Crown accepted that the extended sentence on count 1 was unlawful but opposed the challenges to totality and dangerousness. The appeal concerned statutory eligibility for an extended sentence, whether the determinate sentence was manifestly excessive, and whether unproved disputed allegations could be used in assessing dangerousness.

Disposition

1. The court granted the extension of time and leave to appeal. The appeal was allowed in part because the extended sentence on count 1 was unlawful.
2. Under section 226A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, an extended sentence required either a qualifying prior conviction for an offence listed in Schedule 15B or an appropriate custodial term of at least four years. Neither condition was met. The extended sentence on count 1 therefore had to be set aside (paras [27]-[28]).
3. The determinate sentence was not manifestly excessive. The two Category 1A aggravated burglaries involved separate criminality and separate harm to separate victims. The sentencing judge’s overall approach, including the reduction on count 1 to reflect totality, did not produce an excessive sentence (para [29]).
4. In assessing dangerousness under section 229(2)(c) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the court may consider information about the offender before it, including evidence heard at trial and admissions made to pre-sentence report writers or other professionals. However, when reaching an adverse conclusion, the court must not rely on a disputed fact unless it has been resolved fairly for the defendant. Applying the approach in R v Considine [2007] EWCA Crim 1166, the sentencing judge was wrong to take account of two unproved and disputed allegations concerning other complainants (paras [30]-[31]).
5. The Court of Appeal reassessed dangerousness using the proved facts. The planned and repeated attacks, the escalation in seriousness, and the use of knives established a significant risk of serious harm from further offending. The appellant’s age, lack of previous violent convictions, progress in custody and the pre-sentence report did not displace that conclusion (paras [32]-[35]).
6. The extended sentence on count 1 was replaced by a determinate sentence of two years. Count 2 remained an extended determinate sentence of eight years and two months, comprising seven years’ custody and an extended licence period of one year, consecutive to count 1 (paras [36]-[37]).

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — [2024] EWCA Crim 236: extension of time and leave granted; appeal allowed in part. The extended sentence on count 1 was set aside and replaced with a determinate sentence of two years.
• Crown Court at Woolwich — on 13 February 2020, imposed an aggregate extended sentence of 11 years and two months for the aggravated burglaries, with no separate penalty for the associated assault and bladed-article offences.