Herrity & Anor, R. v
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE TREACY
- MR JUSTICE KING
- HIS HONOUR JUDGE KRAMER QC
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Evidence Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
On 26 February 2013, two appellants and a co-accused pleaded guilty to arson being reckless as to whether life was endangered, during proceedings at the Crown Court at Plymouth. The appellants received sentences of 6 years' imprisonment each. The co-accused received different sentences due to additional charges. The appellants appealed, arguing their sentences were excessive and that they should have received full credit for their guilty pleas. The court reduced their sentences to 5 years and 4 months, acknowledging the pleas were made at the first available opportunity. Legal principles established include the need for reasonable opportunity to plead and considerations of totality when activating suspended sentences.
J U D G M E N T
1. MR JUSTICE KING: On 26 February 2013, in the Crown Court at Plymouth before HHJ Cottle, these two appellants, together with a co-accused Liam MacDonald, each pleaded guilty to count 2 of the amended indictment alleging arson being reckless as to whether life was endangered. The offence had been committed on 27 August 2012. The indictment had been amended that day to add count 2. It had originally contained only count 1 alleging arson with intent to endanger life. Following the pleas the prosecution offered no evidence on that count and a not guilty verdict was entered. We shall return to the circumstances in which these pleas came to be made, and the indictment came to be amended, when we consider the grounds of appeal.
2. Each appellant was sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment. In the course of his sentencing remarks the judge made clear that the credit for which he was giving them for their guilty pleas was one of 25%. Again we will return to the circumstances in which that was indicated. Luscombe also fell to be dealt with for the consequential breach of a suspended sentence order imposed at the Crown Court, on 13 February 2011, for two offences of sexual activity with a child under the age of 16. That order had been one of 12 months' imprisonment suspended for 24 months. The judge activated that sentence consecutively, but with a reduced term of 6 months. He did so expressly having regard to the principle of totality. The total sentence in Luscombe's case was accordingly one of 6 years and 6 months.
3. In the case of the co-accused, MacDonald, the sentence passed on the arson count was that of 5 years. In addition, he received a consecutive sentence of 2½ years for the possession of a Class A drug. The judge made clear that he had reduced the sentence on count 1, compared with the others, to take account of totality.
4. The facts of the arson in the round involved the appellants, as an act of revenge, some time between 7 o'clock and 8 o'clock in the morning, pouring petrol onto the outside of the front plastic door of a semi-detached dwelling house, and through the letterbox, and then igniting the petrol. The appellants then left. At the time of the fire two occupants were in bed, the third was getting ready for work, which fortunately enabled him to be alerted to the fire at the front door, and to take steps to call the fire brigade who put out the fire to the door without anyone being harmed.
5. We return to the facts in a