Maynard, R. v (Rev 1)

Where a medical disposal is unavailable and further delay cannot make it available, the court must impose the appropriate custodial sentence. A serious killing, combined with an unstable and unpredictable mental condition creating a continuing risk of serious harm, can satisfy the statutory dangerousness criteria and require an indeterminate sentence. Life imprisonment remains reserved for the gravest cases. In fixing its minimum term after a manslaughter conviction founded on diminished responsibility, the court must give real effect to the impairment of responsibility while reflecting planning, vulnerability of the victim, concealment and the offender’s remaining responsibility.

The appellant, who had a lengthy history of severe mental ill-health, stabbed and killed a fellow resident of a care home. At the Central Criminal Court he was convicted of murder and, on 6 March 2008, sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 15 years.

On 20 May 2009 the Court of Appeal quashed the murder conviction on fresh psychiatric evidence and substituted manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. The parties and psychiatrists then agreed that a hospital order with an unrestricted restriction order would be appropriate, but no hospital placement was available. Eighteen months later, the appellant still opposed assessment and no medical disposal could be made.

The court therefore had to determine the appropriate custodial sentence, including whether the appellant was dangerous and whether life imprisonment was justified.

1. Life imprisonment was imposed, with a specified minimum term of ten years from 6 March 2008, less 759 days spent on remand.

2. No useful purpose would be served by a further adjournment. A hospital placement remained unavailable, and the appellant had refused to co-operate with the assessment needed to explore a medical disposal. The realistic course was therefore to impose a custodial sentence.

3. The appellant satisfied the statutory dangerousness criteria. The nature of the killing, together with his highly unstable mental condition, chronic psychotic symptoms, self-harm and the unpredictability of any safe management in the community, demonstrated a continuing risk of serious harm. Public protection required an indeterminate custodial sentence.

4. Life imprisonment was appropriate because the case fell within the gravest category. The victim was vulnerable and defenceless. The killing involved some planning, use of a large knife, an attack without warning in the victim’s home, concealment afterwards, and a substantial degree of remaining responsibility despite the serious psychosis.

5. The former 15-year minimum term for murder could not simply be retained. Giving proper credit for the substantial impairment of responsibility required for diminished responsibility, while maintaining the seriousness of the aggravating features, the court assessed the notional determinate sentence at 20 years. The corresponding minimum term was therefore ten years.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 20 May 2009, the court quashed the murder conviction and substituted manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. Sentencing was deferred because no hospital placement was available.
• Central Criminal Court: The appellant was convicted of murder on 5 October 2007 and sentenced on 6 March 2008 to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 15 years.