Attorney General's Reference No. 85 OF 2006

On a reference under Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 36, a sentencing judge’s adoption of too low a starting point does not inevitably require an increased sentence. The Court of Appeal must decide whether the sentence was unduly lenient and whether intervention is necessary in the interests of justice.

Persuading a vulnerable person to take their own life is a serious offence. However, sentencing authorities provide no mechanical tariff for extreme and unusual facts. A case-specific assessment may justify declining to interfere even where the sentence is lenient and close to being unduly lenient.

The offender pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting an attempted suicide. He had encouraged his former wife, who had longstanding severe depression and a history of suicide attempts, and had supplied drugs knowing that she was vulnerable and suicidal. The conduct also involved communications with a sexual element and discussion of suicide.

A sentencing judge imposed 18 months’ imprisonment after treating two and a half years as the starting point and allowing mitigation, including the guilty plea, good character and caring responsibilities. The Attorney General referred the sentence as unduly lenient under Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 36. The issue was whether the Court should increase it.

1. The reference was declined. The Court held that the judge had adopted too low a starting point. Absent a guilty plea, a sentence of three to four years’ imprisonment would have been expected on these facts.

2. Seeking to persuade a vulnerable person to take their own life is serious offending and the victim’s vulnerability had to be reflected in sentence. The Court nevertheless took account of the unusual consensual character of the parties’ activities in the preceding weeks, and of the victim’s indication that she knew, by the end, that the offender did not intend to kill himself.

3. The earlier sentencing authorities cited did not provide substantial assistance in fixing sentence in this exceptional case. The Court held that its facts were extreme and unusual and did not furnish a sensible sentencing blueprint for other cases.

4. The decisive question was not simply whether the starting point had been too low. It was whether the 18-month sentence was unduly lenient and whether the interests of justice required intervention. Although the sentence was lenient and bordered on being unduly lenient, the Court concluded that it was unnecessary to interfere. The sentence therefore remained in force.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On the Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the Court declined to interfere with the 18-month sentence: [2006] EWCA Crim 2623.

• Sentencing court: Following the offender’s guilty plea to aiding and abetting an attempted suicide, the judge imposed 18 months’ imprisonment on 7 July 2006.