Smith, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence following refusal by a single judge. The applicant, aged 24, was sentenced on 5th October 2021 in the Crown Court at Bournemouth for offences including arson, criminal damage, and assault. The applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of arson committed on the same day, including one count of arson reckless as to whether life was endangered, for which an extended sentence of eight years was imposed (four years custodial term plus four years extended licence). Concurrent sentences were imposed for the other arson counts and criminal damage.

Prior to these offences, the applicant had committed assaults on emergency workers while an inpatient at a medium secure psychiatric unit and had received a suspended sentence for other assault offences. The suspended sentence was activated and ordered to run consecutively with the sentence for the committal offences, resulting in a total custodial term of five years and nine months before the extended sentence commenced.

The appeal challenges only the extended sentence on the principal arson count (count 2), arguing that the starting point was too high and that imposing an extended sentence was wrong in principle given the applicant's mental health issues.

The court set out the applicant's offending history in chronological order, including prior assaults causing actual bodily harm and assaults on hospital staff during inpatient treatment, as well as a previous conviction for wounding and possession of a knife. Psychiatric and pre-sentence reports indicated a history of substance abuse, mental health difficulties without clear diagnosis, and a high risk of further violent offending. The applicant was assessed as unmanageable in the community and requiring immediate imprisonment.

The arson offences involved fires set at three locations in Poole, including one at a two-storey flat causing substantial damage and displacing the occupants. The judge found the offence to be category 2B under the Sentencing Council guidelines, with aggravating factors including intoxication, multiple fires set on the same occasion, and commission during a suspended sentence. The judge imposed a custodial term of six years before credit for the guilty plea and an extended sentence of eight years in total for count 2.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the starting point for sentencing on the principal arson offence was too high under the relevant Sentencing Council guideline.
2. Whether it was wrong in principle to impose an extended sentence given the applicant's mental health issues.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The six-year starting point before credit for the guilty plea was excessive and failed to adequately reflect the applicant's psychological difficulties, impairments, and disordered mental state at the time of the offences.
• The judge erred in principle by imposing an extended sentence, contending that intensive therapeutic intervention in custody and early supervised release would be more appropriate.
• The appellant did not challenge the dangerousness finding but argued that the extended sentence was unnecessary.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent's arguments beyond the judge's reasoning and ultimate decision.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully reviewed the sentencing judge's application of the Sentencing Council guidelines, noting the classification of the principal arson offence as category 2B with a starting point of four years' custody. The judge increased this to six years before credit for the guilty plea, citing aggravating factors including intoxication, multiple fires, and commission during a suspended sentence.

The court acknowledged the applicant's mental health difficulties and young age but found no sufficient basis to reduce culpability on that ground, as the offences were primarily linked to substance abuse rather than a diagnosable mental disorder. The judge's assessment of dangerousness was supported by the applicant's escalating pattern of serious offending and high risk of harm to the public and staff.

The court rejected the appellant's submission that an extended sentence was inappropriate, noting the absence of any viable non-custodial alternative and the necessity for ongoing risk management and rehabilitative work during and after custody. The extended licence period was justified by the need to manage the applicant's risk upon release.

Finally, the court considered the overall length of the sentence and found it to be just and proportionate given the seriousness of the offences and the applicant's dangerousness.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence.

The decision confirms the appropriateness of the extended sentence imposed on the principal arson offence, emphasizing the necessity of managing the applicant's significant risk to the public. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling primarily affirms the sentencing judge's discretion in applying sentencing guidelines and assessing dangerousness in complex cases involving mental health and substance abuse factors.