Meenan, R v

When fixing the minimum term for an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment for public protection, the court must assess the determinate sentence that would have been appropriate for the totality of the offending on the artificial hypothesis that the offender was not dangerous. The minimum term reflects the period before eligibility for release; continuing public protection is secured by the indeterminate sentence and the Parole Board’s assessment of risk.

Guilty pleas and mental illness remain mitigating matters in that hypothetical sentencing exercise. A minimum term must not be inflated to reflect risk which is already addressed through the indeterminate regime.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Nottingham to theft, battery, wounding with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, and aggravated burglary contrary to section 10 of the Theft Act 1968. He had violently attacked a woman with a knife after entering her home, and had entered another house intending a further attack.

He suffered from schizophrenia and acute psychotic symptoms, but would not engage with treatment. The sentencing judge imposed imprisonment for public protection with a minimum term of seven and a half years. The appellant accepted that an indeterminate sentence was justified, but appealed on the ground that the minimum term was excessive. The central issue was the proper notional determinate sentence for the totality of the offending.

1. Appeal allowed. The minimum custodial term was reduced from seven and a half years to five years. Time spent on remand continued to count towards that term.
2. The judge’s notional determinate sentence was too high. Although the offences were exceptionally grave and the appellant was dangerous, the court had to assess the sentence on the artificial hypothesis that the dangerous-offender provisions did not apply. It had to identify the determinate sentence appropriate for the totality of the offences, rather than increase that sentence to reflect public protection.
3. On that hypothesis, a total determinate term of about 15 years after a contested trial would have been appropriate. Allowing for the guilty pleas, the appropriate determinate term was ten years. The minimum custodial term was therefore five years, reflecting the point at which such an offender would become eligible for release on licence.
4. The appellant’s mental illness was relevant mitigation in that assessment. His refusal to engage with treatment meant that neither the sentencing judge nor this court could make a medical disposal. The court nevertheless considered that secure hospital treatment would be more suitable if it could lawfully and practically be arranged; that was a matter for the Secretary of State.
5. The reduced term did not determine the appellant’s release date. He remained subject to an indeterminate sentence and could not be released unless the Parole Board concluded that he no longer posed a danger to the public.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted a five-year minimum custodial term.
• Crown Court at Nottingham: The Recorder imposed imprisonment for public protection with a minimum custodial term of seven and a half years following guilty pleas to theft, battery, wounding with intent and aggravated burglary.