Craig Banner [2019] EWCA Crim 1288

The appellant was convicted of aggravated burglary and causing grievous bodily harm with intent and sentenced to an extended sentence of 18 years comprising a custodial term of 14 years. He burst into a neighbour’s flat when he answered the door, striking the victim with a hammer before continuing the assault with his fists. The victim was left with a fractured skull and both hands were fractured, with the possibility two fingers may be lost. Leave to appeal was granted on the grounds that the judge erred in considering that the dangerous provisions were applicable.

In considering dangerousness account was taken of the pre-sentence report where he was assessed as presenting a “high risk of harm”. The judge concluded from the report and circumstances of the offence that there was a significant risk the appellant would commit specified offences and that by doing so would cause serious physical or psychological harm to one or more persons, and that a determinate sentence was not sufficient.

The defence argued that the provisions did not apply, if they did an extended sentence was not appropriate and the period of the extension fixed was too long. The most recent conviction for violence was in 1997, there were no convictions for weapons-related offences and there was only a medium risk of recidivism. It was said that an immediate determinate sentence could adequately reflect the seriousness of the offending.

Held: the judge was entitled, based on the report and the circumstances of the offence, to reach the conclusion the appellant was dangerous. The judge’s reasons for regarding a determinate sentence as insufficient appeared to be that there remained a high risk of re-offending because of ingrained criminogenic factors contributing to the risk of re-offending which had not been addressed by the many non-custodial sentences and single custodial sentence in the past. The other factor was the nature and the circumstances of the offence itself. Although the reasoning was somewhat sparse it did sufficiently indicate that the judge was not satisfied that a determinate sentence would address the risk of re-offending and the high risk of harm in this case. The decision was one the judge was entitled to reach based on the information before him. The extension period was 4 years, it was not high. The appeal was dismissed.