R v Steven Rich (aka Whitelaw)

A finding that an offender is dangerous does not make imprisonment for public protection inevitable where the statutory scheme makes that sentence discretionary. The sentencing court must consider the nature and extent of the risk and all suitable protective measures, including an extended sentence and any additional orders. Imprisonment for public protection is a last but one resort. If an extended sentence would adequately protect the public, it should be imposed instead. A judge who considers no alternative and gives no reason why an extended sentence would be inadequate makes an error of principle. The assessment is fact-specific and may take account of age, previous offending, guilty pleas and prospects of rehabilitative work in custody.

Steven Rich appealed, almost 15 years out of time, against a sentence imposed by HHJ Coates at the Crown Court at Warwick on 20 May 2010. After guilty pleas to robberies, car thefts and possession of an imitation firearm, he received imprisonment for public protection under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, with a 15-year term and a seven-and-a-half-year minimum term.

The finding that he was dangerous was not challenged. The appeal concerned whether imprisonment for public protection was discretionary under section 225(3), whether the sentencing judge had failed to consider an extended sentence, and whether a 15-year custodial term with a five-year extended licence would adequately protect the public.

1. Extension of time. The court granted an extension of time in the interests of justice. Mr Rich had not apparently been advised that he had real prospects of appealing, sought advice after learning that an out-of-time appeal was possible, and the subsequent delays were not attributable to him.
2. Sentencing principle. The finding of dangerousness was properly made, but imprisonment for public protection was discretionary under the statutory scheme then in force. Following the principles in Attorney General's Reference No 55 of 2008, [2009] 2 Cr.App.R (S) 22, the judge had to consider all alternative and cumulative methods of protecting the public. Imprisonment for public protection was the last but one resort. An extended sentence should be imposed if it would provide adequate protection.
3. Error and application. The sentencing judge had considered no alternative after finding Mr Rich dangerous and had given no reasons why an extended sentence would not meet the risk. That was an error in principle. Given Mr Rich's age, his lack of previous convictions for violence, his guilty pleas, his admissions of other offences and the opportunity for rehabilitative work in custody, an extended sentence would have provided sufficient protection. The imprisonment for public protection sentence was outside the range reasonably available to the judge.
4. Order. The sentence of imprisonment for public protection was quashed. The court imposed a 15-year custodial term, with the sentences for the other offences concurrent, and an extended licence period of five years. The substituted sentence was therefore a 20-year extended sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), [2025] EWCA Crim 1774, 5 December 2025: granted an extension of time, allowed the appeal, quashed the imprisonment for public protection sentence and substituted a 20-year extended sentence.
• Crown Court at Warwick, 20 May 2010: HHJ Coates imposed imprisonment for public protection under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 for 15 years, with a minimum term of seven-and-a-half years.