Webb, R. v

A mercy killing reduced to manslaughter by diminished responsibility remains an unlawful killing which requires punishment. Sentencing must nevertheless reflect the offender’s actual culpability and all exceptional mitigation. Material mitigation may include the deceased’s voluntary, clear, settled and informed wish to die, the offender’s reluctant assistance in seeking to fulfil that wish, substantially impaired responsibility, previous good character and the absence of any future risk.

In an exceptional case, a suspended sentence may properly mark the gravity of unlawful killing without undermining the sanctity of human life.

The appellant was acquitted of murdering his wife at Sheffield Crown Court, but convicted by a jury of manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility. He had smothered her after she had taken an overdose in an attempt to end her life and, as her condition appeared to improve, had asked him not to let her wake.

He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. He appealed against sentence. The issue was whether that term gave insufficient weight to his substantially reduced responsibility and to the exceptional circumstances in which he had acted.

1. Appeal allowed. The two-year immediate custodial sentence was quashed and replaced with twelve months’ imprisonment, suspended for twelve months, with a supervision order and requirements for contact with the responsible officer and co-operation with medical treatment or counselling.
2. The killing was an unlawful act. It was manslaughter, not assisted suicide. The appellant knew what he was doing and that it was unlawful; diminished responsibility reduced, but did not extinguish, his culpability.
3. However, the circumstances closely resembled an assisted-suicide case for mitigation. The deceased had made a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to end her life. The appellant had previously tried to dissuade her. His eventual conduct was reluctant assistance intended to enable her to achieve her settled wish.
4. The court also gave substantial weight to the jury’s finding of diminished responsibility. The appellant’s serious adjustment disorder and depression had developed while he cared for his wife in circumstances of increasing isolation and distress. His age, previous good character, devoted care of his wife and full co-operation with the police further mitigated sentence.
5. R v Inglis [2010] EWCA Crim 2637 was materially different. The court also noted the sentencing guidance discussed in R v Wood [2009] EWCA Crim 651. Applying the cumulative mitigation to this singular case, the court held that a suspended sentence would not undermine the principle of the sanctity of human life.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Allowed the appeal against sentence: [2011] EWCA Crim 152.
• Crown Court at Sheffield The appellant was acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility, and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment.