Saunders & Ors v R

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment concerns three appeals against sentences of life imprisonment which were non-mandatory. The appeals were heard sequentially due to overlapping issues regarding the correct approach to non-mandatory life sentences following amendments to the dangerous offender provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, as amended by subsequent legislation including the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 ("LASPO"). The LASPO provisions came into force on 3 December 2012 and affected sentencing regimes for offenders convicted after that date. The appeals involve consideration of the applicability of different sentencing regimes depending on the date of conviction and the nature of offences committed.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing court should apply the sentencing regime in force at the date of conviction or anticipate the new LASPO regime when sentencing offenders convicted before 3 December 2012 but sentenced after that date.
2. The correct approach to imposing non-mandatory life sentences, including statutory life sentences, discretionary life sentences under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and the survival of other discretionary life sentences outside these provisions.
3. The impact of LASPO on the availability of sentences such as Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) and extended sentences, and their relationship to life sentences for public protection.
4. The appropriateness of life sentences versus extended sentences or IPP in specific cases involving serious offences committed by the appellants.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant in the First Case

• Argued that the sentencing judge was wrong to impose a life sentence rather than a sentence of imprisonment for public protection or an extended sentence.
• Contended that the minimum term of 8 years, based on a notional determinate sentence of 24 years, was manifestly excessive.

Appellant in the Second Case

• Contended that despite the seriousness of the offences, a life sentence was not justified.
• Argued that aggravating features present in other cases were absent, such as violence, digital penetration, physical injury or pain.
• Suggested that a very substantial extended sentence would have been more appropriate.

Appellant in the Third Case

• Submitted that the discretionary life sentence was wrongly imposed as a substitute for an IPP sentence.
• Argued that the offences were not sufficiently grave to warrant life imprisonment.
• Claimed the minimum term was excessive, referencing the sentences of a co-accused to support this.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first affirmed that for offenders convicted before 3 December 2012, the sentencing regime in force at the date of conviction applies, rejecting the submission that the earlier provisions had fallen into desuetude due to the impending LASPO changes. The court emphasized the importance of consistency between sentencing, licence, and release provisions to avoid chaos.

The court then outlined the four contexts in which life imprisonment sentences arise post-LASPO: mandatory life sentences for murder, statutory life sentences for second listed offences under section 224A, discretionary life sentences under section 225, and other discretionary life sentences for offences not covered by the statutory provisions but justifying life sentences for public protection.

The court explained the abolition of the IPP sentence by LASPO and the retention of discretionary life sentences to provide long-term public protection where the new extended sentences are insufficient. It clarified that the new extended sentence differs significantly from the former IPP, particularly in terms of custodial and licence periods.

In analyzing the individual appeals, the court reviewed the facts and sentencing decisions in detail, finding that the life sentences imposed were appropriate given the gravity of the offences and the high risk posed by the appellants. The court dismissed the appeals in the first two cases, upholding the life sentences and minimum terms. In the third case, the court allowed the appeal to the limited extent of substituting the life sentence with an IPP sentence, recognizing that the IPP would provide the necessary public protection without enabling earlier release than appropriate.

Holding and Implications

The court's final decisions were as follows:

• The appeals against life sentences in the first two cases were DISMISSED, affirming the appropriateness of the life sentences and minimum terms imposed.
• In the third case, the appeal was ALLOWED to the limited extent of substituting the discretionary life sentence with an Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence, maintaining the necessary public protection.

The implications of these decisions confirm that the sentencing regime in force at the date of conviction governs the sentencing process, including the application of life sentences and public protection sentences. The judgment clarifies the continuing role of discretionary life sentences post-LASPO, particularly where extended sentences do not provide adequate protection. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing sentencing principles to the facts of these appeals.