R v Luke Matthews
[2024] EWCA Crim 151
R v Adam Charles Hare
11 April 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 555
Court of Appeal
A man was given a long prison sentence for violently attacking his ex-girlfriend. He tried to appeal, saying the sentence was too long and that the judge wrongly labeled him as dangerous. The appeal court disagreed, saying the judge had good reason to give him such a long sentence to keep the public safe.
Key Facts
- •Adam Charles Hare convicted of two counts of assault by beating, criminal damage, inflicting grievous bodily harm, and making a threat to kill.
- •Sentenced to an extended sentence of nine years (four years custody, five years extended license) for the threat to kill and a concurrent five-year extended sentence for grievous bodily harm.
- •Applied for an extension of time to appeal sentence, refused by a single judge and then renewed in this appeal.
- •Offences stemmed from a violent attack on his former partner, Sasha Wellington, following a breakdown of their relationship.
- •Hare had previous convictions for driving with excess alcohol, criminal damage, and battery, and a caution for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
Legal Principles
The decision on whether to find an applicant dangerous and impose extended sentences rests with the sentencing judge.
Court of Appeal Criminal Division
The Court of Appeal will not interfere with the sentencing judge's decision unless it was wrong in principle or a conclusion no reasonable judge could reach.
Court of Appeal Criminal Division
The extended licence period in an extended sentence is not to be equated with a term of imprisonment when applying sentencing guidelines; it's for public protection.
R v Terry [2013] 1 Cr App R (S) 51, Court of Appeal Criminal Division
There is no error in principle if the aggregate of the custodial term and extended licence period exceeds the relevant category range in sentencing guidelines.
R v Terry [2013] 1 Cr App R (S) 51, Court of Appeal Criminal Division
Sentencing should consider the totality principle (balancing all sentences).
Court of Appeal Criminal Division
Outcomes
The application for an extension of time and leave to appeal against sentence were refused.
The Court of Appeal found the proposed grounds of appeal unarguable. The sentencing judge's decision on dangerousness was justified by ample admissible evidence, and the overall sentence, including the extended licence period, was not manifestly excessive.