R v Tammy Richards

For a sentence of imprisonment for public protection under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the sentencing judge must personally assess whether the offender poses a significant risk of serious harm through further specified offences. Reports informing that assessment may properly be considered with the offender’s convictions, conduct, stated intentions and relevant diagnosis.

An appellate challenge fails where the sentencing remarks show that the judge applied the statutory test, gave sufficient reasons, and reached conclusions properly justified by the available material.

In 2007, following guilty pleas, the applicant was committed to the Crown Court at Leicester for sentence. She received imprisonment for public protection with a 16-month minimum term for making threats to kill, and a concurrent 16-month sentence for possessing an offensive weapon.

In 2024, she renewed an application for a 6,239-day extension of time to seek leave to appeal her sentence. She contended that the sentencing judge had inadequately justified the statutory dangerousness assessment and had relied on material concerning offending that was not sufficiently connected with future specified offences.

The central issue was whether it was arguable that the sentence was wrong in principle and, consequently, whether an extension of time should be granted.

1. The applications were refused. It was not arguable that the sentence was wrong in principle. No purpose would therefore be served by granting the very substantial extension of time required to pursue an appeal.

2. The sentencing judge had to determine for himself whether the statutory conditions in section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 were met. He properly considered the pre-sentence and psychiatric reports, but did not treat their assessments as displacing his own responsibility for that decision.

3. The sentencing remarks showed that the judge applied the correct statutory test. He expressly found a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm through further specified offences. The fact that one report referred to the risk of further similar offending did not show that the judge misunderstood the statutory requirement.

4. There was an adequate evidential basis and sufficient reasons for the assessment. Relevant material included the applicant’s previous offences, threats and hostility towards the victim, her purchase and possession of a knife, her conduct in travelling to the victim’s address, her stated intention to cause harm, and the diagnosis of emotionally unstable personality disorder. The judge was entitled to conclude that threats could escalate into the use of a weapon causing serious harm.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed applications for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against sentence were refused: [2025] EWCA Crim 437.
• Crown Court at Leicester: On 7 March 2007, the applicant received imprisonment for public protection under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, with a 16-month minimum term, for making threats to kill, and a concurrent 16-month sentence for possessing an offensive weapon.