R v Gavin Plumb

In sentencing preparatory offending involving solicitation or encouragement of serious crime, the court must assess the particular facts, the offender’s intention, what was planned, its feasibility and the harm that would have resulted. Intended harm must be considered alongside actual harm. The attempted-murder guideline may be used as a yardstick where non-attempt offending is at least as serious in context; there is no universal hierarchy placing solicitation below attempted murder. For a dangerous offender, the statutory sequence is to determine dangerousness, assess whether the offending justifies life imprisonment, and impose life imprisonment if it does. The judge need not separately consider an extended sentence if those stages are properly addressed.

Following a trial at the Crown Court at Chelmsford, Gavin Plumb was convicted of soliciting murder under section 4 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, and of encouraging or assisting kidnapping and rape under section 45 of the Serious Crime Act 2007. Murray J imposed concurrent life sentences and fixed a minimum term of 16 years, reduced to 15 years and 85 days for time spent on remand.

On a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence, the applicant argued that the notional determinate sentence of 24 years was manifestly excessive because the offences were preparatory and the plans were unlikely to succeed. He also argued that a life sentence should not have been imposed without express consideration of an extended sentence.

The court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal.

1. Use of the attempted-murder guideline. R v Franks [2023] EWCA Crim 319; [2023] 2 Cr App R(S) 29 did not establish that every offence of soliciting murder is less serious than every offence of attempted murder. Solicitation may involve persistent, sophisticated and highly organised planning, whereas attempted murder may occur spontaneously. Seriousness therefore requires close analysis of the facts, the offender’s intention, the planned conduct and the consequences that would have followed success. R v Franks was not authority for excluding the attempted-murder guideline as a sentencing yardstick where the conduct was at least as serious in context.
2. Assessment of seriousness. The court agreed that the attempted-murder guideline could be used. The case fell within category B2, with a starting point of 25 years and a range of 20 to 30 years. The court had to consider intended harm as well as harm actually caused. The plans’ feasibility or viability was relevant, but the long period of offending, repeated attempts to recruit accomplices and serious previous convictions justified the notional determinate sentence of 24 years.
3. Life sentence for a dangerous offender. Under the statutory scheme, the judge first determines whether the offender is dangerous, then whether the seriousness of the offending, considered together with relevant previous convictions, justifies life imprisonment. Once those conditions are met, life imprisonment is required under section 274(1) and (3) of the Sentencing Code. The judge was not required expressly to consider an extended sentence or explain why it would be inadequate. In any event, release while the offender remained dangerous would create an unacceptable public-safety risk in the circumstances of this case.

The sentencing conclusions were unimpeachable and the appeal was dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), [2025] EWCA Crim 1461: renewed application for leave granted; sentence appeal dismissed.
2. Crown Court at Chelmsford (Murray J): convictions on three counts; concurrent life sentences imposed with a minimum term of 16 years, reduced to 15 years and 85 days for time on remand.