R v Harry Jones

LORD JUSTICE DINGEMANS: Introduction and issues 1. This is an application by Her Majesty's Solicitor General, under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, for leave to refer to this court a sentence which he considers to be unduly lenient. We grant leave. 2. The offender is Harry Jones. He is 19 years of age, having been born on 4th January 2003. He was aged 18 years and one month at the time of the offences, which were committed on 14th February 2021. 3. On 27th February 2021, the offender was convicted, by his plea, of possession of cannabis, contrary to section 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. On 23rd July 2021, he was convicted, by his plea, of wounding with intent, contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, in that he shot Jayden Smith-Orlebar to the abdomen with a crossbow, and of two offences of having an offensive weapon, contrary to section 1(1) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. The offensive weapons were a crossbow (the crossbow used), and a Samurai sword. Sentence was adjourned pending the resolution of a basis of plea, and the preparation of a pre-sentence and psychiatric reports. 4. On 25th February 2022, the offender was sentenced to six years' detention in a young offender institution for the offence of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. He received concurrent sentences of 18 months' detention in respect of the two offences of possessing an offensive weapon in a public place, and four weeks' detention in respect of possession of a controlled drug of class B (cannabis). There was an issue about the announcement of the sentences for those two offences in open court, and we will return to those matters later. 5. The Reference raises issues about whether the sentence for the section 18 offence was unduly lenient. Mr Richardson, on behalf of the Solicitor General, has submitted this morning: first, that the judge incorrectly categorised the offending as falling within category 2 and not category 1 harm, and reliance is placed on the fact that both sides agreed that it was category 1 at the sentencing hearing before the judge; secondly, that the judge awarded too great a reduction for the offender's guilty plea in circumstances where he submitted a false basis of plea with which he persisted for some months; thirdly, that the judge reduced the sentence to take account of the prison conditions due to the Covid pandemic, which was inappropriate, given the length of sentence that ought to have been imposed; and fourthly, that the judge should have imposed an extended sentence, pursuant to section 267 of the Sentencing Act 2020 to address the significant risk of serious harm posed by the offender. 6. Mr Budworth, on behalf of the offender, submits that the sentence was not unduly lenient; that the judge was entitled to consider that the offence fell into category 2 of the sentencing guidelines, and the categorisation of the offending is for the judge and not for the parties; that the reduction for the guilty plea was appropriate; that the judge had to have regard to prison conditions; that the judge was entitled not to impose an extended sentence; and that the author of the pre-sentence report had taken particular account of the offender's immaturity, which meant that, when looked at as a whole, this was a sentence which was not unduly lenient, having regard to issues of age. 7. We are very grateful to both Mr Richardson and Mr Budworth for their helpful written and oral submissions. 8. Before the offences with which we are concerned, the offender had one previous conviction for having a bladed article in a public place. That was on 11th August 2017 when he was 14 years of age (three and a half years previously). The offence occurred when he was searched by police and found to have a large kitchen knife with an eight inch blade tucked into the waistband of his tracksuit bottoms. He received a six month referral order. 9. It is apparent from the psychiatric evidence, to which we will come, that the offender had a very difficult home life, that he had suffered abusive relationships, and that he had adopted a macho gang culture as a coping mechanism. The relevant facts 10. The offender and Jayden Smith-Orlebar had been best friends at school. Smith-Orlebar was aged 18 at the time of the offence, and he considered them still to be friends. He provided a description of the offender, including a tattoo which read "heartless" with a depiction of a knife, which we take to be an illustration of the offender's adoption of the macho culture referred to in the reports. 11. On 14th February 2021, they had messaged each other throughout the day. Smith-Orlebar intended to buy some tracksuit bottoms from the offender. They met shortly after 10 pm, at a bus stop on Crumpsall Street near Plumstead. It was a wet and dark night. The offender was approximately 10 to 15 metres away when Smith-Orlebar saw him. Smith-Orlebar greeted the offender, who did not respond. The offender walked towards Smith-Orlebar, holding a two foot long black crossbow. The offender stopped walking and pointed the crossbow at Smith-Orlebar, holding it in two hands. Smith-Orlebar thought it was a fake, as the offender had previously posted about it on social media. The offender then shot Smith-Orlebar with the crossbow. He did not realise initially that he had been shot. He felt a lot of pain in his groin and saw blood on his hand. He started to run away. He heard the offender say, "Don't come around here again". He saw the offender reach into his bag apparently for a second bolt for the crossbow and attempt to reload, but he did not know whether any further shot was fired. Smith-Orlebar ran to Abbey Wood Station and collapsed on to a bench, from where he called the police. He recalled lapsing in and out of consciousness, and thinking that he may never get to see his unborn child. 12. The police investigation obtained CCTV footage from nearby cameras. It showed the offender approaching his meeting with Smith-Orlebar with one hand in a bag. He is then seen to remove the crossbow from the bag and point it at him. The crossbow was preloaded for use. Having discharged the crossbow, the offender removed a large Samurai sword from his waistband and chased after Smith-Orlebar. He then returned to his home address. 13. Police officers arrived at Abbey Wood Station at about 10.17 pm. Smith-Orlebar was barely conscious and could not speak. They could see a small puncture wound to his lower abdomen, but it was apparent that he had lost a lot of blood. They began first aid until paramedics arrived. One of the paramedics who attended described the injuries as life threatening. From the police body-worn footage one of the paramedics can be heard to comment that that Smith-Orlebar was "barely with us". The Admission to hospital and injuries 14. Smith-Orlebar was taken to Kings College Hospital, where he was admitted as a major trauma patient. He was resuscitated and assessed. He was found to have cardiovascular instability and the presence of free fluid in the abdomen. He was therefore transferred to theatre for an emergency laparotomy. The operation found that he had: (i) a 2cm external wound to the lower abdomen; (ii) a 20cm metal arrow within the abdominal cavity; (iii) multiple injuries to the small bowel; (iv) three perforations to the large intestine; and (v) two perforations to the descending colon. He underwent two bowel resections, and related reconnection of the bowel, alongside repair of the other injuries. He was transferred to the Critical Care Unit for post-operative management. 15. The following day his condition became unstable. Radiological investigation revealed intra-abdominal bleeding. He underwent further surgery: a second laparotomy which confirmed the intraabdominal haematoma and possible disruption of the repair of the injuries. Further repair was undertaken and he was again released to the Critical Care Unit. 16. On 18th February he was transferred to a surgical ward where he remained until discharge. The consultant surgeon described his recovery as slow, because of the extent of his gastrointestinal injuries, which delayed his oral feeding. He also suffered a wound infection that required antibiotic treatment. He was discharged on 11th March 2021, which was just under a month after the attack. He was told that it would take a further year for him to make a full recovery. 17. Further details of Mr Smith-Orlebar’s recovery were not available to the sentencing judge. That was because Smith-Orlebar had stopped co-operating with the police. That was in circumstances where there were issues about his treatment immediately after he had been saved, and also because it appeared that his police witness statement had been shared on social media in circumstances which were not clear. 18. On 25th February 2021, police officers went to the offender's home address. He was arrested, cautioned and taken to Bexleyheath Police Station. A search was conducted of his bedroom, during which the Samurai sword, ten bags of herbal cannabis, a set of scales and several telephones were seized. 19. The offender was interviewed. He answered "No comment" to all the questions asked of him. 20. A further search was undertaken of his home address. A crossbow string, crossbow shaft and flight were all seized from his bedroom. The proceedings 21. As one of the issues raised in the Reference is credit for the guilty plea, it is necessary to set out some of the procedural history of this case. On 27th February 2021 the offender first appeared before the Magistrates' Court in respect of the wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, two charges of possession of an offensive weapon and possession of cannabis. He pleaded guilty at that time to the possession of cannabis. He gave no indication of his plea in respect of the other offences, and his case was sent to the Crown Court at Woolwich for a plea and trial preparation hearing on 26th March 2021. That hearing was adjourned at the request of the offender to 21st May 2021. 22. The plea and trial preparation hearing took place on 21st May, when directions were given. The offender was not arraigned as those representing him indicated that they were seeking to obtain a psychiatric report regarding his fitness to plead. A further case management hearing was listed for 16th July 2021. That hearing was subsequently adjourned at the request of those representing the offender to 23rd July 2021. It was on that date that the offender was arraigned and pleaded guilty to all counts. A pre-sentence report was ordered. 23. On 27th September 2021 – and so some period afterwards – a basis of plea was submitted on behalf of the offender. That basis of plea was not accepted. Directions were given for a Newton hearing. However, Smith-Orlebar became unwilling to assist for the reasons we have already given. 24. On 11th February 2022, the prosecution indicated they would apply under the hearsay provision to read the Smith-Orlebar's statement for the purposes of the Newton hearing. About ten days later the offender indicated that he would no longer pursue the basis of his plea. The reports about Mr Jones 25. Two psychiatric reports were obtained on behalf of the offender from Dr Asim Yusuf, a Consultant Psychiatrist, dated 25th June 2021 and 22nd November 2021 respectively. In the report dated 25th June 2021, Dr Yusuf set out that the offender told him on 14th February 2021 that he had agreed to help Smith-Orlebar rob someone. Smith-Orlebar told him not to bring any weapons. The offender became suspicious, thinking that he was about to be robbed, or beaten up. He therefore took a crossbow and knife to their meeting. He said that they were the sorts of things he would normally carry around because he feels unsafe on the streets. As he approached Smith-Orlebar he was convinced that he was about to be attacked, so he produced his crossbow and fired it at close range into his stomach. He then produced the sword and chased him to scare him. He said that he only wanted to scare Smith-Orlebar, but also described himself as being manic and in a rage. He said that he had been in a manic state for four days prior to the incident and remained in that state for two weeks after the offence. As regards his family, the offender said that he had a good relationship with his mother and younger brother. His father abused drugs and alcohol and was abusive to him and to his mother. He described himself as having a "hair trigger" where his temper was concerned. He had started to smoke cannabis at the age of 12 and continued to use it up until his arrest. This is, if it is needed, yet another evidence-based example of the damage caused by drugs in society. He would fund his cannabis use by selling it to others. He described that he could become violent when he felt disinhibited. He appeared to have a lack of behavioural control. Dr Yusuf concluded that the offender presented with symptoms of Bipolar Affective Disorder which would have affected his judgement and emotional state at the time. He also presented with features of Antisocial Personality Disorder, which may have influenced his aggressiveness. He had become involved in gang subcultures as a coping mechanism. 26. In a supplementary report, Dr Yusuf noted that in the second interview the offender had provided him with an account of his mental state, which was quite different from that described at the first interview. Dr Yusuf concluded that a diagnosis of Bipolar Affective Disorder was now no longer warranted. It appeared more likely that he suffered from mood instability related to substance misuse and personality disorder. He concluded: "It does not appear that [the offender's] mental state played a significant part in his actions during the index offence. This appears from his own self-report to have been rashly thought through. There is no evidence that he was mentally disordered during the event of incident, even if his somewhat inconsistent account of symptoms before and after the offence are accepted as reliable." Dr Yusuf concluded that he did not consider the offender to be "dangerous from a psychiatric perspective … with the exception of his antisocial personality disorder". 27. A psychiatric report was obtained on behalf of the prosecution from Dr Gurjiven Hothi, a Consultant in Forensic Psychiatry, dated 9th November 2021. The offender gave a similar account of the reasons behind the offence to that given to Dr Yusuf. In addition, he explained that he had a reputation for carrying weapons. He said that the days leading up to the offence were unremarkable. He said that small things would trigger him to go into a rage. Dr Yusuf could not detect any symptoms of mental illness. Dr Hothi said that the offender had had minimal contact with psychiatric services prior to his remand in prison. He had experienced gang violence as a victim, perpetrator and observer. He said that the offender would fulfil the criteria of conduct disorder. He had symptoms of emerging dissocial personality disorder: in particular persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms and rules, and a low tolerance to frustration and violence. The offender fulfilled the criteria for harmful cannabinoid use. Dr Hothi concluded that the offender did not fulfil the criteria for Bipolar Affective Disorder. He noted a high degree of discrepancies surrounding the offender's account of his mental state at the time of the offence. 28. Dr Yusuf and Dr Hothi prepared a joint statement, dated 24th November 2021. They agreed: that the offender met the criteria for the diagnosis of antisocial/dissocial personality disorder; that at the time of writing their joint statement the offender did not meet the criteria for a diagnosis of Bipolar Affective Disorder; that there was no evidence that at the time of the offence, or when remanded, the offender suffered from a severe mental illness; that he was not legally insane; that he did not have a psychotic or psychiatric illness of such severity that he would not have been capable of understanding what he did was wrong; and that he did not require any psychiatric disposal at sentencing. 29. The offender and his mother both wrote letters to the judge. The offender explained his actions on the day. He attributed them to fears about being set up, and over-reactions caused by drug abuse. He apologised for his actions. 30. A pre-sentence report was prepared to assist the court. It was dated 3rd September 2021. At that stage the author had the benefit of the first psychiatric report prepared by Dr Yusuf, but not the subsequent reports in which the diagnosis of Bipolar Affective Disorder, set out in the first report, was confirmed to be inaccurate. The offender had told the author that there had been a disagreement relating to a fake £50 note that Smith-Orlebar had given him, and that he had got his "comeuppance". He said that he would usually carry around the crossbow and Samurai sword for protection. The author noted that the offender had limited insight into the impact of his behaviour. He considered the offender to be unpredictable; his behaviour was impulsive and fuelled by anger and revenge, whereby he acted violently when he felt frustrated. The offender told the author that he had been involved with gangs from the age of 12. The author assessed the offender as a high risk of serious recidivism. He said that he presented a high risk of serious harm to known adults and members of the public. The author then put forward the rival contentions. On the one hand, given that the offender had only one previous conviction, he might be thought not to meet the criteria for an extended sentence of detention. On the other hand, the offence was serious, his behaviour unpredictable, he had an acknowledged predilection for weapons, and had mental health difficulties. It might be thought that the risk he posed could not be met by a determinate sentence. The author recognised that the decision was for the court, but concluded that the risk could better be met by an extended sentence of detention. The sentencing hearing 31. At the start of the hearing the judge made it clear to prosecuting counsel that he did not accept the joint categorisation by the parties of the offence as category 1. The judge found that the offender had a grudge against Smith-Orlebar. The offence was a revenge attack that was planned and calculated. He had lured Smith-Orlebar to a meeting. He had taken a loaded crossbow and Samurai sword with him. The judge set out the circumstances of the offending and noted that Smith-Orlebar had lost consciousness, required resuscitation and significant surgery. He said that Smith-Orlebar should recover within twelve months but with unknown psychological consequences. 32. The judge found the offence to fall within category A culpability, because of three features: it was planned and premeditated; a highly dangerous weapon was used; and it was a revenge attack. He noted that the crossbow was the "next best thing to a firearm". He found that the offence was category 2 harm, because the injury was "a grave life-threatening injury but not particularly grave or particularly life threatening". He noted that it had not resulted in permanent incapacity in a wheelchair or with breathing difficulties, or the need for a carer. He therefore considered the offence to be "top end of category 2" with a starting point of eight years' detention. The offence was aggravated by the previous conviction, the presence of two weapons, and a further attempted attack with the sword. That merited an upward adjustment to ten years. 33. By way of mitigation, the offender was young; the age of 18 was not a "cliff edge". The judge took into account his immaturity, mental disorder, and psychiatric reports, although he noted that the offender had sought to manipulate the psychiatrists. He made allowance for prison conditions resulting from the pandemic. He therefore reduced the sentence back down to eight years' detention. He then further reduced that sentence to six years to reflect 25 per cent credit for his guilty plea (the discount contended for by the prosecution, the offender's counsel having asked for a discount of 33 per cent). He concluded that the offender was not dangerous and noted that the sentence "could easily have been in double figures". 34. The judge said that he had given anxious consideration to the issue of dangerousness. He distinguished an authority referred to him on the basis that the pre-sentence report in that case had made a contrary finding, and he said that Dr Yusuf was probably using "dangerousness" in its legal sense when he said that the offender was not dangerous. The judge said that it was a narrow balance, but that it would not be right to make a finding of dangerousness. It was common ground before us that the judge was mistaken in what he said was in the pre-sentence report. The pre-sentence report had left the matter for the court to decide. In his report Dr Yusuf said that the offender was not dangerous, with the exception of his antisocial personality disorder. 35. The judge told the offender that it was for him to demonstrate that the lenient approach that he proposed to take did not backfire. 36. It appears from email exchanges between the Court of Appeal Criminal Division Office and the judge that the judge omitted to announce the sentences on counts 2, 3 and 4 in open court. That seems to be the position from the transcript. The judge believed that the matter was raised with him later that day, and it was agreed that the matter should be corrected administratively. 37. As there is no issue about these sentences, we confirm in open court that the sentences imposed by the judge on counts 2, 3 and 4 will stand. Those sentences are concurrent terms of 18 months' detention for the two counts of possession of an offensive weapon (the crossbow and Samurai sword) and four weeks' detention for possession of cannabis. All of those sentences will run concurrently with each other, and the main sentence. Prison report 38. It is apparent that, since his incarceration, the offender has been the subject of a number of adverse adjudications for assault, including pinning the arms of another inmate so that that inmate could be attacked by others. The offender has also been attacked. It is not apparent from those reports that he heeded the judge's exhortation at the end of the sentencing exercise. Relevant guidelines 39. The Sentencing Council has issued guidelines for offences of inflicting grievous bodily harm and wounding with intent. A case will fall within category A high culpability where there is a significant degree of planning or premeditation, a highly dangerous weapon is used, or it is a revenge attack. A factor indicating lesser culpability is mental disorder or learning disability where linked to the commission of the offence. It is plain from the evidence that the offender's mental disorders or disabilities were not linked to the commission of these offences. 40. A case will fall within category 1 harm where there is "particularly grave or life-threatening injury caused: injury results in physical or psychological harm resulting in lifelong dependency on third party care or treatment; or offence results in a permanent, irreversible injury or psychological condition which has a substantial and long-term effect …" 41. Category 2 harm applies where there is "grave injury: or the offence results in a permanent, irreversible injury or condition not falling within category 1." 42. Category 1A has a starting point of 12 years' custody, with a range of ten to 16 years. Category 2A has a starting point of seven years' custody, with a range of six to ten years. 43. The guidelines note the following aggravating features: previous convictions, and the sustained nature of the attack. Mitigating features can include age and mental disorder, where not linked to the commission of the offence. 44. The Sentencing Council guideline for sentencing offenders with mental disorders provides that consideration must be given to whether culpability is reduced by reason of any impairment of disorder. Culpability will only be reduced where there is sufficient connection between the impairment or disorder and the offending behaviour. In some cases, this will result in a significant reduction. In other cases, the impairment or disorder may have no relevance to culpability. The court may consider whether an impairment or disorder impairs the ability to exercise judgment, make rational choices, or understand the nature and consequences of actions. It might be noted that this guideline applies only to offenders over the age of 18 years at the time of sentence. That is because mental health and related issues can be substantially different in both diagnosis and impact for young persons. In such cases, courts are directed to the guideline for sentencing children and young people, particularly at sections 1.11 to 1.14. 45. Although the offender in this case was just 18 at the time of the offence, as Mr Budworth submitted, attaining the age of 18 is not a cliff edge for the purposes of sentence. Therefore, it is necessary to look at the relevant guideline for sentencing children and young people, which emphasises the importance of developmental age as much as chronological age. Sections 1.11 to 1.14 of the guideline identify that the courts should be alert to any mental health problems or learning difficulties and disabilities. The guideline notes that there is an expectation that in general a child or young person will be dealt with less severely than an adult offender. In part, this is because young people are unlikely to have the same experience and capacity as an adult to understand the effect of their actions on other people, especially where peer pressure is applied. Factors reducing seriousness or reflecting mitigation include learning disabilities. Paragraph 4.10 of the guideline highlights that chronological age dictates what sentence can be imposed; but developmental age or emotional age should always be considered. Paragraph 6.46 of the guideline suggests in terms that a discount of one half to one third should normally be given to those aged 15 to 17 years, but that the guidelines were not to be applied mechanistically. 46. The Sentencing Council guideline in respect of a reduction for sentence for a guilty plea provides that where a guilty plea is indicated after the first stage of proceedings, credit of between 25 and ten per cent will be appropriate, depending on the stage at which the proceedings have reached. If a Newton hearing takes place, credit will normally be reduced. If a Newton hearing is indicated, but does not take place, credit might be reduced. Credit might be given if it was unreasonable to plead sooner than was done. Wrong category 47. In our judgment, the judge was right to say that the categorisation of this offence was a matter for him, regardless of any agreement between the parties before the court. However, in our judgment, the judge was wrong to find that the offence of wounding with intent fell into category 2. The case involved life-threatening injuries. The judge was wrong when he said that what was required by the guideline was "particularly life-threatening injuries". The paramedic who attended the scene described Smith-Orlebar's injuries as "life threatening"; he lost consciousness, required resuscitation and two operations with extensive surgery. He was in hospital for almost a month, and it would be a year before he made a full physical recovery. As the judge noted, but for the intervention of paramedics, Smith-Orlebar would have died. It follows that the harm was life threatening. The offender shot Smith-Orlebar in the stomach with a crossbow. The offence would have been one of murder, but for the skilled intervention of the emergency services. The offence fell into category 1 harm. This gives a starting point of 12 years' custody, with a range of ten to 16 years. 48. Thereafter, the starting point required an upward adjustment to reflect the three factors of higher culpability: the planning and premeditation; the highly dangerous weapon; and the revenge attack. The sentence required a yet further upward adjustment to reflect aggravating features: the offender's previous convictions for possession of an offensive weapon (albeit three and a half years before the present offending); two weapons were produced and used; and the fact that Smith-Orlebar was chased. We consider that the sentence for an adult would have been increased to one of 15 years' custody. 49. We then turn to mitigation. The particular mitigation in the offender's case was his age and mental disorder. In the joint psychiatric report Dr Yusuf and Dr Hothi agreed that the offender met the criteria for a diagnosis of antisocial dissocial personality disorder. That was a factor which the judge was required to take into account, together with the offender's age and emotional immaturity. In addition, the judge was entitled to have some measured regard to the conditions in which the offender had been incarcerated pending his sentencing. 50. Doing the best we can, we reduce the notional sentence from 15 years to 12 years' custody to reflect those factors. It will be obvious that that is not the one third discount which has been urged upon us, but we consider that to be a fair reflection of all the evidence, including the psychiatric evidence. 51. So far as discount for the guilty plea is concerned, the discount of 33 per cent, which was submitted by Mr Budworth, was not adopted by the judge. The judge adopted a discount of 25 per cent in accordance with the prosecution’s submissions to him. That might have been thought to be generous, but it was not unduly lenient. There were complicating factors in relation to the obtaining of evidence about fitness to plead and psychiatric evidence, given that this was a crime of specific intent and issues about mental disorder had been raised. It is right to note that the offender submitted a false basis of plea, which he pursued from 27th September 2021 until 21st February 2022, but it was then abandoned. It was in the light of all those matters that the prosecution had proposed the figure of 25 per cent. We do not consider that we should interfere with that assessment. If a 25 per cent discount is applied to the figure of 12 years, that gives a sentence of nine years. 52. We turn to the third aspect of the Reference, that of dangerousness. The Court of Appeal will not lightly interfere with the assessment of a sentencing judge that an offender is not dangerous where the judge has had regard to the relevant principles and applied his mind to the relevant facts. 53. In this case, the judge had misstated the conclusion of both the author of the pre-sentence report and that of Dr Yusuf. It is therefore necessary for us to revisit the matter. It is apparent from all the evidence before the court that the following matters were to be taken into account: the nature of the index offence, including its planned and premeditated nature; the presence of two weapons; the offender's admission that he routinely carried weapons; the conclusions of the pre-sentence report; the limited insight that the offender demonstrated into the impact of his behaviour; the fact that his behaviour is unpredictable; the fact that he has a hair trigger; the fact that he is violent when disinhibited; and the fact that he demonstrates impulsive behaviour when angry and seeking revenge. 54. In our judgment it is plain that the offender poses a high risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by the commission of further specified offences. We note in particular that the psychiatric reports describe the offender as having had a "hair trigger" where his temper was concerned, and that small things would trigger him to go into a rage. The offender himself explained that he can become violent when disinhibited. He appears to lack any behavioural control. In all of those circumstances we consider that the offender was, for the purposes of the relevant statute, a dangerous offender and that he ought to have been made the subject of an extended sentence. 55. Having regard to his age, and having regard to the fact that there will now no longer be a determinate sentence, we consider that an extended licence of four years is appropriate. 56. Accordingly, we quash the sentence imposed on count 1 and substitute therefor an extended sentence of 13 years, comprising a custodial term of nine years and an extended licence period of four years. To that extent the Reference succeeds. ______________________________________ Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground, 18-22 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1JS Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: [email protected] ______________________________