R v Luke Matthews
[2024] EWCA Crim 151
R v Carl MacDowall
7 March 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 294
Court of Appeal
A man was given a long prison sentence for serious crimes including kidnapping and shooting someone. His lawyer argued the judge should have gotten a report before deciding he was dangerous and needed extra supervision after release. The appeals court said the judge knew enough about the man from the trial, and the crimes were so bad, it was okay to skip the report. The man's appeal failed.
Key Facts
- •Carl MacDowall (born December 1999) convicted on 18 January 2023 of kidnapping, possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence, and wounding with intent.
- •Sentenced on 26 January 2023 to an extended sentence of 20 years (17 years custodial, 3 years extended licence) for kidnapping, concurrent sentences for other offences.
- •Offences involved kidnapping Jacob Clough-Massey at gunpoint, assaulting him, and shooting him in the leg.
- •Kidnapping motivated by attempt to obtain £5,000 from victim's cousin.
- •Victim suffered permanent nerve damage and ongoing pain.
- •MacDowall had three previous convictions for four offences, including possession of a bladed article, but none for violence.
- •Appeal concerned the justification of the extended licence period and the judge's refusal to order a pre-sentence report.
Legal Principles
Section 30(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020 mandates obtaining and considering a pre-sentence report before forming an opinion on dangerousness for extended sentences, unless unnecessary.
Sentencing Act 2020, section 30(1)
Section 308(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020 defines the test for dangerousness as a significant risk to the public of serious harm from further specified offences.
Sentencing Act 2020, section 308(1)
Sentencing judge's assessment of risk is guided but not bound by pre-sentence reports; any deviation should be discussed with counsel (R v Lang [2005] EWCA Crim 2864).
R v Lang [2005] EWCA Crim 2864
A finding of dangerousness doesn't automatically necessitate an extended sentence; a determinate sentence might suffice (R v Burinskas [2014] EWCA Crim 334).
R v Burinskas [2014] EWCA Crim 334
Court of Appeal considers whether the judge was justified in not ordering a pre-sentence report, considering the severity of the offences and the information available.
R v Johnson and Others [2019] EWCA Crim 2503; R v Fryer [2022] EWCA Crim 1837
Section 33 of the Sentencing Act requires the Court of Appeal to obtain a pre-appeal report unless the lower court's decision was justified or obtaining a report is unnecessary.
Sentencing Act 2020, section 33
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
While the judge should have considered a pre-sentence report, the court found the circumstances justified the omission given the severity of the offences and the judge's knowledge of the appellant from the trial. The pre-appeal report supported the dangerousness finding.