R v Leighton Williams
[2024] EWCA Crim 686
R v Paul Ashmore
6 September 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1083
Court of Appeal
A young man was given a very long prison sentence because the judge thought he was dangerous. A higher court looked at the case again and decided the judge didn't properly consider his age and chances of changing. The long sentence was cancelled, and he got a shorter one instead.
Key Facts
- •Paul Ashmore (applicant) pleaded guilty to causing grievous bodily harm with intent and breach of an Antisocial Behaviour Order in November 2005.
- •The incident involved a violent attack on Michael Jackson, where Ashmore stamped on Jackson's head.
- •Ashmore had a previous conviction for violent disorder in 2003, where another person died.
- •The judge imposed an indeterminate sentence of detention for public protection (IPP) with a minimum term of 17 months.
- •Ashmore's application for an extension of time to appeal his sentence was referred to the full court.
- •The court considered whether Ashmore should have been deemed 'dangerous' under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Legal Principles
Dangerous offender provisions under the Criminal Justice Act 2003
Criminal Justice Act 2003, sections 224, 225, 226, 228, 229
Principles for assessing dangerousness, including consideration of immaturity and potential for rehabilitation
R v Lang [2005] EWCA Crim 2864; R v Roberts [2016] EWCA Crim 71; R v Leighton Williams [2024] EWCA Crim 686; R v Peters [2005] EWCA Crim 605; R v Clarke [2018] EWCA Crim 185
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed.
The court found the indeterminate sentence for public protection was wrong in principle and manifestly excessive. The judge did not properly apply the principles in Lang and other cases in assessing dangerousness, failing to adequately consider Ashmore's immaturity and potential for rehabilitation. The presumption of dangerousness under section 229(3) was not met.
The IPP sentence was quashed.
The original sentence was deemed to be wrong in principle because the criteria for considering the applicant to be dangerous was not met.
A determinate sentence of three years and six months' detention in a young offender institution was substituted.
This sentence reflected the seriousness of the offense while accounting for mitigating factors and the errors made in the original sentencing.