Singleton, R. v

A mental health treatment requirement under section 207 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 may be imposed where the court is satisfied that the offender’s mental condition requires, and may respond to, treatment; a hospital or guardianship order is unwarranted; and treatment arrangements are in place. The offender must also express willingness to comply.

On a sentence appeal, current psychiatric and probation evidence may justify substituting a community order for imprisonment where the offending was probably associated with a schizophrenic relapse and the risk can be managed in the community. Where consent cannot immediately be confirmed, the treatment requirement may be made conditional upon timely consent.

The appellant was convicted at Birmingham Crown Court of arson, being reckless as to whether life would be endangered, after starting a fire in his parents’ home while they were asleep. He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.

The sentencing judge had evidence pointing principally to alcohol dependency. On appeal, further psychiatric and probation reports indicated that the appellant had probably been suffering a schizophrenic relapse when he offended and that, with treatment and supervision, his risk could be managed in the community.

The issue was whether the custodial sentence should be replaced by a community order and, if so, whether a mental health treatment requirement could properly be imposed.

1. Appeal allowed. The court substituted a three-year community order for the five-year sentence of imprisonment. The new psychiatric evidence, considered with the probation evidence, established that the appellant probably suffered a schizophrenic relapse at the time of the offence. The reports also supported the conclusion that he could be safely managed in the community with appropriate supervision and treatment.

2. The seriousness of arson and the vulnerability of the appellant’s parents justified the original judge’s concern. However, the later material materially altered the clinical assessment available on sentence. The court therefore concluded that a community-based disposal was now appropriate.

3. The community order was to include residence at the appellant’s parents’ address and supervision by the Probation Service. Pursuant to section 207 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, it was also to include a mental health treatment requirement under the direction of the appellant’s general practitioner and consultant psychiatrist.

4. The court was satisfied that the appellant’s condition required and might respond to treatment; that it did not warrant a hospital or guardianship order within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983; and that treatment arrangements had been made. As section 207 required the appellant’s willingness to comply, the treatment requirement was conditional on his consent being notified within 14 days. The order would take effect on consent, or after 14 days if consent had been given; absent consent within that period, it would not take effect.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted a three-year community order, subject to the appellant’s consent to the mental health treatment requirement.
• Crown Court at Birmingham: On 15 February 2007, imposed five years’ imprisonment following the appellant’s conviction for arson on 10 January 2007.