Catt, R. v

In a novel sentencing exercise without a useful tariff or directly analogous authority, the court must stand back and assess culpability and harm in order to reach a just sentence. The gravity of deliberately ending a pregnancy at or near full term is substantial, but sentencing must also reflect personal mitigation, including a guilty plea, remorse, psychological evidence and the effect on dependent children. A sentence must not be fixed by treating the offence as if it were a more serious homicide offence. On the exceptional facts of this case, a starting point of 12 years and a sentence of eight years were manifestly excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty at York Crown Court to administering poison with intent to procure a miscarriage, contrary to section 58 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. She had obtained and taken misoprostol when her pregnancy was at or near full term, having concealed the pregnancy and later lied about having had a lawful termination.

The judge treated the offending as exceptionally grave, adopted a starting point of 12 years and, after full credit for the early guilty plea, imposed eight years’ imprisonment. The appellant challenged that sentence as manifestly excessive. The appeal concerned the proper assessment of culpability, harm and mitigation in an unprecedented sentencing exercise.

1. The appeal was allowed to a limited extent. The sentence of eight years’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive. The appropriate starting point was about five years and, allowing the same credit for the guilty plea, the proper sentence was three years and six months’ imprisonment.
2. The offence was exceptionally grave. The appellant had deliberately procured the ending of a pregnancy at or near full term, after planning and obtaining an abortifacient. The absence of the body, the planning, her concealment of the pregnancy and her experience of pregnancy were aggravating features.
3. Nevertheless, the sentencing exercise had to be undertaken by assessing culpability and harm, rather than by treating the offence as one falling between manslaughter and murder. In a novel case, the court should stand back and assess the facts. It may draw upon sentencing jurisprudence concerning other offences to achieve a just outcome. The Court derived only that general assistance from R v Magira [2008] EWCA Crim 1939.
4. The psychiatric evidence did not establish a mental disorder, so the judge was entitled to treat the appellant as a rational person responsible for her actions. However, the reports also described entrenched emotional and coping difficulties, and supported the conclusion that she was remorseful. The Court also gave weight to her role as a good mother of two young children and to the adverse effect of her imprisonment on the family.
5. The unreviewed first-instance sentencing decision in R v Mohammed was of no assistance. The Court accordingly substituted the reduced sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2013] EWCA Crim 1187, allowed the sentence appeal to a limited extent and reduced the term from eight years to three years and six months.
• Crown Court sitting at York — The appellant pleaded guilty to an offence contrary to section 58 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment.