R v Daniel Hague

For an extended sentence, the custodial term must be the least term properly commensurate with the seriousness of the offending under section 231 of the Sentencing Act 2020. An extended sentence is justified where the offender is dangerous and the risks cannot be addressed by a standard determinate sentence. In assessing seriousness, the court may consider the guideline categories, the offender’s role, previous convictions and connected serious criminality. A muddled explanation of how concurrent offences have been reflected does not require intervention if the final sentence properly expresses the overall seriousness and is not manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal dismissed the sentence appeal.

The appellant pleaded guilty to false imprisonment and assault occasioning actual bodily harm following a planned kidnapping involving serious violence and the use of a weapon. The Crown Court at Manchester imposed an extended sentence of 8½ years, comprising 5½ years’ custody and an extended licence period of three years, with a concurrent sentence of 18 months for the assault.

With leave, the appellant challenged the application of totality, the starting point, the treatment of mitigation and the legal basis for the extended sentence. The central issue was whether the six-year custodial term before credit for plea was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

1. Extended sentence. The Crown Court was entitled to find that the appellant was a dangerous offender and that the risks he presented could not be addressed by a standard determinate sentence. There was therefore no arguable error of law in imposing an extended sentence.
2. Custodial term. Under section 231 of the Sentencing Act 2020, the relevant question was whether six years’ custody before credit for plea was the least term properly commensurate with the seriousness of the offending.
3. Guideline assessment. The false imprisonment was high in category 3B, with a range of one to three years and a two-year starting point. It was close to category 2 for harm. The offence was planned, involved threats of very serious violence, and included actual violence with a wheel brace. The appellant’s leading role, previous convictions and involvement in other serious criminality justified raising the offence to the next category, with a range of two to seven years and a five-year starting point.
4. Totality and appellate review. The sentencing judge’s explanation that he would impose four years for the false imprisonment and add two years to incorporate the concurrent assault sentence was somewhat muddled. That did not establish an unjustified leap or double counting. The proper question was whether six years was a manifestly excessive expression of the overall seriousness. It was within the applicable sentencing range, might be regarded as stiff, but was merited after taking account of mitigation and was not excessive.
5. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 19 May 2026, the court dismissed the appeal against sentence: [2026] EWCA Crim 689.
• Crown Court at Manchester (Minshull Street): On 13 May 2025, HHJ MacAdam imposed an extended sentence of 8½ years, with a concurrent sentence of 18 months for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.