7th November 2017
4th May 2016
Jason Elliott represented an appellant who had pleaded guilty to a robbery and a burglary. The appellant had been 17 at the date of the sentencing hearing.
“For the offence of robbery he was sentenced to detention for public protection, with a minimum term to be served of 2 years’ custody less 13 days spent on remand. For the offence of burglary he was sentenced to 3 years’ detention to run concurrently.”
The appellant had subsequently re-offended, resulting in a further custodial sentence and a return to custody under the terms of his indeterminate detention. It was argued that –
“Section 226 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 applied at the time of sentence, where an offender under the age of 18 was convicted of a serious offence and the court was of the opinion that there was a significant risk to the public of serious harm from further specified offences. If the seriousness of the offence did not justify a sentence of detention for life, and if the court considered that an extended sentence under section 228 would not be adequate to protect the public from serious harm from further specified offences, then the court was obliged to impose a sentence of detention for public protection. By section 228 the court was obliged to pass an extended sentence of detention where there was a significant risk to the public of serious harm from the commission of further specified offences and the court was not required to pass either a sentence of detention for life or a sentence of detention for public protection. Accordingly, the learned judge had to decide if the appellant did pose the necessary risk and, if so, whether an extended sentence was adequate to protect the public. If it was not, he was obliged to pass a sentence of detention for public protection.”
The Court determined that although the sentencing Judge had not explicitly referred to the availability of an extended sentence, that must have been in his mind.Back to News & Insights