Introduction

Hanson v Rex [2023] EWCA Crim 203 is a significant case decided by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on February 10, 2023. The appellant, Ishmale Hanson, aged 31 at the time of the judgment, appealed against his sentence for multiple robbery offenses committed when he was 15 years old. The case delves into the appropriateness of imposing a sentence of detention for public protection (DPP) on a young offender and the consideration of a young person's potential for rehabilitation and change.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal reviewed Hanson’s sentencing for five robbery offenses committed shortly after his 15th birthday. The original sentencing judge imposed detention for public protection, considering Hanson’s extensive criminal history and the risk he posed. However, upon appeal, the Court found that the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider Hanson’s youth and potential for rehabilitation. Consequently, the Court quashed the original sentences and substituted them with an extended sentence comprising a custodial term of three years and six months, followed by an extended license period of two years.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key precedents that shaped the Court’s decision:

• R v Lang [2006] 2 CrAppR (S) 3: Established the fundamental question for sentencers regarding whether an extended sentence is adequate to protect the public.
• R v JW [2009] 2 CrAppR (S) 94: Emphasized the necessity to consider the rapid potential for change in young offenders when assessing future risks.
• Attorney General's Reference No 55 of 2008 (R v C) [2009] 2 CrAppR (S) 22: Highlighted that extended sentences should be considered prior to deciding on imprisonment for public protection.
• R v Roberts [2016] 2 CrAppR (S) 14: Clarified the appellate court’s role in reviewing sentences, focusing on whether the sentencing judge followed statutory provisions and did not conduct a fresh sentencing exercise.
• R v Mariano [2019] EWCA Crim 1718: Reinforced the necessity for judges to address age and maturity explicitly when sentencing young offenders.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal scrutinized the original sentencing judge’s decision, particularly the rationale behind imposing a DPP. While acknowledging that Hanson had a concerning criminal history and posed a significant risk, the appellate court determined that the sentencing judge did not sufficiently account for Hanson’s youth and the likelihood of rehabilitation. The absence of detailed reasoning for deeming an extended sentence inadequate to protect the public was a critical oversight. The appellate court underscored that judges must consider the propensity for change in young offenders and provide comprehensive justifications when deviating from extended sentences.

Impact

This judgment underscores the judiciary's obligation to balance public protection with the rehabilitative potential of young offenders. It sets a precedent that extended sentences should generally be favored over indefinite sentences like DPPs for young individuals, unless there is unequivocal evidence that extended sentences are insufficient. Future cases involving young offenders will likely reference this judgment to ensure that age and potential for change are adequately considered in sentencing decisions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Detention for Public Protection (DPP)

DPP is a type of indefinite sentence intended for offenders deemed to pose a long-term risk to the public. It extends beyond the initial custodial term, allowing for continued detention if the offender remains a threat.

Extended Sentence under Section 228

An extended sentence comprises a custodial term followed by an extended license period. This structure ensures that the offender serves a substantial time in custody and remains under supervision after release.

Significant Risk under Section 229

Section 229 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 requires the court to assess whether an offender poses a significant risk of causing serious harm through further specified offenses. This assessment informs the type of sentence imposed.

Sentencing Principles for Young Offenders

When sentencing young offenders (under 18), courts prioritize rehabilitation and the offender’s welfare. The potential for change and development is heavily weighed against public protection needs.