R v Steven Sillito

On an appeal against sentence, the appellate court asks whether the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive on the information available to the sentencing judge at the time. It does not substitute a different sentence merely because it would have chosen one.

For a dangerous offender aged 19, an indefinite custodial sentence should be avoided if possible. The court must consider the offending and intention, age and maturity, personal history, available risk information, and whether risk can be managed by an extended licence. Later difficulties with indefinite sentences do not retrospectively make the original sentence unlawful. Where the merits cannot fairly be determined without further evidence, the court may grant leave and direct reports before the substantive hearing.

The applicant, aged 19 when he offended and was sentenced, pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne to two offences under section 63(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and an offence under section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. He received an indefinite sentence of detention for public protection, with a specified minimum term of three years.

He sought an extension of 4,298 days for seeking leave to appeal, leave to appeal against sentence, and legal representation. His central complaint was that the Recorder had imposed an indefinite rather than an extended sentence and had not adequately explained why an extended licence would not manage the risk. The Court also had to address later recall to prison and the absence of information needed to determine the substantive appeal fairly.

The Court granted the extension of time, granted leave to appeal, and made representation and case-management directions. It did not determine the substantive appeal and gave no indication of its likely outcome.

1. Applicable statutory framework. The record incorrectly referred to section 226 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. That provision applied only to offenders under 18 at conviction. As the applicant was 19, section 225 was the relevant provision. Section 227 provided an alternative discretion to impose an extended sentence, and the applicable minimum-term condition was met.

2. Appellate approach. The question on the sentencing appeal would be whether the indefinite sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive for the offending, assessed by reference to the information available to the Recorder when sentence was imposed. The issue was not whether the appellate court would itself have selected an extended sentence. Subsequent practical difficulties affecting prisoners subject to indefinite sentences could not retrospectively make the original sentence wrong.

3. Sentencing considerations. The offending was grave and repeated, and involved entry into a victim’s home, a sharp weapon and planning. Against that, the applicant was only 19, had a troubled personal history, and had no relevant history of violent or sexual offending or previous custody. An indefinite custodial sentence for a person of that age should be avoided if possible. The difficulty was the lack of an explanation for the offending and the consequent lack of information about future risk, treatment and supervision. The Recorder’s reasons did not explain why an extended licence would not suffice, but the merits could not fairly be determined without fuller material.

4. Further directions. The Court directed disclosure of Parole Board materials, an updated pre-appeal report, information about courses and progress, the basis and investigation of the later recall, risk assessments, proposed Sexual Harm Prevention Order terms, and relevant representations. The substantive appeal was to be listed no earlier than the following term, with liberty to apply for further directions.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2025] EWCA Crim 37, the court granted an extension of time and leave to appeal, made representation and information-gathering directions, and deferred the substantive appeal.
• Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne: The applicant pleaded guilty and was sentenced on 2 March 2012 to an indefinite sentence of detention for public protection, with a specified minimum term of three years.