MacDowall, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal against sentence brought with the leave of the single judge who also granted a representation order. The Appellant, aged 24, was convicted after a trial alongside two co-defendants in the Crown Court at Liverpool of kidnapping, possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence, and wounding with intent. The sentencing took place on 26th January 2023, where the trial judge imposed an extended sentence of 20 years for kidnapping, comprising a custodial term of 17 years and an extended licence period of three years, pursuant to section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020. Concurrent sentences were imposed for other offences, including drug-related offences.

On 16th May 2020, police discovered evidence of Class A drug dealing at a flat, including crack cocaine and paraphernalia, with the Appellant’s fingerprints found on certain items. Subsequently, on 15th December 2020, the Appellant and co-defendants kidnapped a victim at gunpoint, assaulted him, and held him captive for approximately an hour and a half. The victim was shot in the leg and left with permanent injuries. The kidnapping was motivated by an attempt to extort £5,000 from a relative of the victim. The Appellant had prior convictions but none for violence and had never served a custodial sentence before.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the imposition of the extended licence period of three years was justified.
2. Whether the trial judge erred in principle by not ordering a pre-sentence report before making a dangerousness determination under the Sentencing Act 2020.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The extended licence period of three years was not justified.
• The trial judge should have acceded to an application for a pre-sentence report before making the dangerousness determination, and failure to do so constituted an error of principle.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the statutory framework under the Sentencing Act 2020, particularly sections 30 and 308, which regulate the requirement for pre-sentence reports when forming opinions relevant to sentencing, including dangerousness assessments for extended sentences. The court acknowledged the Appellant’s argument that the sentencing judge erred by not obtaining a pre-sentence report prior to the dangerousness finding. However, the court noted that the judge had conducted the trial, heard evidence including the Appellant’s testimony, and was aware of the serious nature of the offences and the Appellant’s background.

While the court recognized that obtaining a pre-sentence report is generally advisable and often necessary for assessing dangerousness, it concluded that in this case the judge was entitled to find it unnecessary given the circumstances. The court considered the seriousness of the offences, including the use of a real firearm causing lasting injury, the Appellant's involvement in Class A drug dealing, and the absence of mitigating factors such as psychological issues or remorse. The court also reviewed the pre-appeal report which confirmed the Appellant posed a high risk of serious harm, supporting the judge’s original assessment.

The court thus found no error in principle or procedural unfairness in the sentencing judge’s approach and upheld the extended sentence and licence period imposed.

Holding and Implications

The appeal against sentence is DISMISSED. The court held that the sentencing judge was justified in not obtaining a pre-sentence report before making the dangerousness determination, given the particular facts and circumstances of the case. The extended sentence, including the three-year licence period, was appropriate and necessary to protect the public. No new precedent was established; the decision affirms that while pre-sentence reports are important, their necessity depends on the context and may be dispensed with where the judge has sufficient information to make a reasoned assessment.