Moore, R v

In sentencing for manslaughter by diminished responsibility, the court should assess the seriousness of the killing by reference to the guidance in Criminal Justice Act 2003, Schedule 21, while giving full effect to the reduced culpability inherent in the successful plea. The extent of that reduction may vary greatly.

The absence of premeditation or an intention to kill may not be counted twice as mitigation where it already reflects the offender’s diminished responsibility. A brutal and sustained killing, together with previous serious violence and continuing dangerousness, may justify a substantially higher minimum term than that imposed at first instance.

The Attorney General referred a sentence as unduly lenient under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. At Manchester Crown Court, on 17 September 2009, Patrick Moore had pleaded guilty to manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility, following acceptance of that plea on a murder count.

The judge imposed imprisonment for public protection with a minimum term of 38 months, less time on remand. The offender had beaten the deceased to death after both had been drinking. He had a history of violence and alcohol dependency, and psychiatric evidence supported diminished responsibility.

The central issue was whether the minimum term was unduly lenient, having regard to the gravity of the killing, diminished responsibility, dangerousness, the guilty plea and the applicable sentencing guidance.

1. The reference was allowed. The original minimum term was unduly lenient. The court varied it to a minimum term of six years, subject to credit for time spent on remand under section 240 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
2. The sentence of imprisonment for public protection was justified. The offender was plainly dangerous. His history included serious violence, and the psychiatric evidence showed a high risk of future violent behaviour if he returned to alcohol. Public protection required that he not be released until it was safe to do so.
3. The killing was a ferocious and sustained attack on a defenceless and helpless victim. The offender’s diminished responsibility reduced his culpability, but did not erase the seriousness of the violence or the death caused. His later conduct also showed some capacity to conceal his involvement, although he eventually surrendered himself.
4. The court applied the approach in R v Wood [2009] EWCA Crim 651. The seriousness of diminished-responsibility manslaughter should be assessed with assistance from Schedule 21, subject to the reduced culpability inherent in the plea. The court also warned against double counting: where diminished responsibility has reduced culpability, the absence of premeditation or an intention to kill may already be reflected in that reduction.
5. On a proper overall assessment, the appropriate custodial term before statutory halving was 12 years, rather than eight years. After allowing for the guilty plea and applying the statutory halving requirement, the proper minimum term was six years.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On an Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court held that the minimum term was unduly lenient and increased it to six years.
• Crown Court at Manchester: On 17 September 2009, the offender was sentenced to imprisonment for public protection for manslaughter by diminished responsibility, with a minimum term of 38 months less 227 days on remand. No citation was stated.