R v Adam Charles Hare

An appellate court will not interfere with a sentencing judge’s assessment that an offender is dangerous unless the judge acted on a wrong principle or reached a conclusion no reasonable judge could reach. Where there is ample admissible evidence, the sentencing judge may reach that assessment from the evidence and personal evaluation of the offender; it does not depend upon the opinion in a pre-sentence report.

For an extended sentence, the extended licence period protects the public. It is not a term of imprisonment for applying sentencing-guideline category ranges. The aggregate of the custodial term and extended licence period may therefore exceed the relevant range.

Following a jury trial in the Crown Court at Northampton, the applicant was convicted of assaults upon his former partner, criminal damage, inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20, and making a threat to kill contrary to section 16 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. He received an extended sentence of nine years, comprising four years’ custody and a five-year extended licence period.

He renewed an application, made 1,388 days late, for leave to appeal against sentence after refusal by a single judge. He contended that the sentencing judge had wrongly found him dangerous and that the extended sentences were manifestly excessive. The central issues were whether the dangerousness finding was arguably flawed and whether the licence period could be treated as imprisonment when compared with guideline ranges.

1. The court refused the application for an extension of time and the application for leave to appeal against sentence. The proposed grounds were unarguable.

2. The sentencing judge’s conclusion that the applicant was dangerous was a judgment for her, not one dictated by the pre-sentence report. The Court of Appeal would intervene only if the judgment were wrong in principle or one that no reasonable judge could reach. The trial judge had ample opportunity to assess the applicant and had sufficient admissible evidence to support her conclusions. Her assessment did not depend upon the report author’s opinions, so the applicant’s criticisms of that report could not found an arguable appeal. No psychiatric report was required.

3. The challenge to the overall extended sentences misunderstood the relevant approach. The court followed R v Terry [2013] 1 Cr App R (S) 51. An extended licence period is imposed to enhance public protection against the risk posed by the offender. It is not to be equated with imprisonment when applying guideline ranges for offences under sections 16 and 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.

4. Accordingly, there is no error of principle merely because the combined custodial and extended-licence periods exceed the relevant guideline category range. The four-year custodial term was amply justified, and neither it nor the extended licence period was arguably manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): By [2024] EWCA Crim 555, the court refused the renewed application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), single judge: Refused leave to appeal against sentence, prompting the renewed application.

• Crown Court at Northampton: On 4 July 2019, the applicant was convicted by a jury. On 12 August 2019, he received extended sentences, producing a total sentence of nine years.