Reaffirmation of Extended Licensing and Dangerous Offender Designation: Insights from Hare v [2024] EWCA Crim 555

Introduction

In the case of Hare, R. v ([2024] EWCA Crim 555), the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) addressed critical issues concerning extended sentencing and the designation of offenders as dangerous. The applicant, Mr. Hare, was convicted on multiple charges, including assault, grievous bodily harm (GBH), and making threats to kill. Following his conviction, Mr. Hare sought an extension of time to appeal his sentence, which was ultimately refused by the appellate court. This commentary delves into the intricacies of the judgment, exploring the legal principles upheld and their broader implications.

Summary of the Judgment

Mr. Hare was convicted of five counts, including assault by beating, damaging property, inflicting GBH, and making threats to kill. He received an extended sentence of nine years, comprising a four-year custodial term and a five-year extended licence period. Mr. Hare's application to extend the time for appealing this sentence was denied by the Court of Appeal. The appellate court upheld the original sentencing judge's decision, affirming the necessity of the extended sentence to protect the public and recognize Mr. Hare's dangerousness.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court of Appeal referenced R v Terry [2013] 1 Cr App R (S) 51, which clarified that extended licence periods should not be conflated with custodial terms when applying sentencing guidelines. This precedent underscores the court's stance that extended licence periods serve the purpose of public protection beyond mere imprisonment.

Legal Reasoning

The appellate court emphasized that the determination of whether an offender poses a danger is ultimately a judgment call for the sentencing judge, not subject to interference unless there is a clear error in principle. In Mr. Hare's case, the judge had ample evidence, including a pre-sentence report and victim statements, to justify the dangerous offender designation and the extended sentence. The court also clarified that the extended licence period is a legitimate tool for enhancing public protection and does not render the overall sentence manifestly excessive.

Additionally, the court addressed the applicant's criticism regarding the lack of a psychiatric report, concluding that the sentencing judge appropriately assessed Mr. Hare without necessitating further psychological evaluation.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the judiciary's authority to impose extended sentences and designate offenders as dangerous based on comprehensive assessments. It affirms that extended licence periods are justified measures for safeguarding the public, even if they extend beyond standard sentencing guidelines. Future cases involving dangerous offenders and extended sentencing will likely reference this judgment, solidifying the court's approach to balancing punishment with public protection.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Dangerous Offender

A dangerous offender is someone whose behavior indicates a substantial risk of causing serious harm to others in the future. This designation allows for extended sentences to protect the public.

Extended Licence Period

An extended licence period is a term following release from custody during which an offender must comply with certain conditions. Breaching these conditions can result in re-imprisonment.

Pre-sentence Report

A pre-sentence report is a document prepared by the Probation Service to inform the court about the offender's background, circumstances, and factors relevant to sentencing.

Determinate Sentences

Determinate sentences refer to fixed-term custodial sentences where the length is set at sentencing, as opposed to indeterminate sentences which do not have a fixed end date.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in Hare, R. v ([2024] EWCA Crim 555) reaffirms the judiciary's discretion in imposing extended sentences and recognizing offenders as dangerous based on comprehensive evidence. By upholding the extended licence period and the dangerous offender status, the court underscores its commitment to public protection and the nuanced application of sentencing guidelines. This judgment serves as a pivotal reference for future cases involving complex sentencing considerations, ensuring that the balance between punishment and societal safety remains steadfast.