McNulty, R. v

Where no offence-specific sentencing guideline applies, the court should assess culpability and harm, have regard to the statutory maximum, and use analogous guidance and cases with appropriate caution. The appellate question remains whether the total sentence is manifestly excessive.

Ill-treatment of highly vulnerable persons by a care worker is inherently serious because it combines deliberate harm with a grave breach of personal and public trust. Immediate custody may nevertheless be necessary despite substantial personal mitigation, remorse, previous good character and an early guilty plea. The total sentence must still reflect the overall offending and remain within the proper sentencing range.

The appellant pleaded guilty at a Magistrates’ Court to two offences of ill-treatment or neglect by a care worker, contrary to section 20 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. He was committed to the Crown Court at Teesside for sentence.

Over about one month, while employed as a support worker for adults with learning disabilities, he committed repeated physical assaults on one patient and two assaults on another. CCTV footage showed the offending. The appellant pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and relied on previous good character, longstanding good service, remorse, depression, and difficult personal circumstances.

On 6 September 2019, the Crown Court imposed consecutive sentences totalling two years and eight months’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive and should have been shorter and suspended.

1. Appeal allowed to a limited extent. The total sentence of two years and eight months’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive. The court quashed the consecutive eight-month sentence for the offence against Mr Ripley and substituted an eight-month concurrent sentence. The total sentence was therefore reduced to two years’ immediate imprisonment.

2. The sentencing judge’s method attracted no criticism. There was no offence-specific guideline. The judge appropriately considered culpability, harm, the five-year maximum sentence under section 20 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, potentially analogous guidance, and comparable offences with due caution. The judge was also entitled to conclude that immediate custody was unavoidable.

3. The offending was intrinsically serious. It involved a sustained abuse of the trust owed by a carer to vulnerable patients, repeated deliberate physical assaults, and victims unable to report what was happening. The absence of serious physical injury did not diminish the likely pain, distress and fear caused. Some assaults involved significant force and evidence suggested attempts to avoid detection.

4. There was, however, substantial mitigation. The appellant had previously been a diligent carer of good character, had significant depressive illness and adverse personal circumstances, was remorseful, and pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. The maximum sentence had to accommodate materially graver examples of the offence and offenders with relevant convictions. A total sentence of four years after trial was outside the range properly open to the judge. The appropriate total after trial was three years, reduced to two years for the guilty pleas.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — allowed the sentence appeal to a limited extent and varied the total sentence to two years’ imprisonment: [2019] EWCA Crim 2081.
• Crown Court at Teesside — on 6 September 2019, imposed consecutive sentences totalling two years and eight months’ imprisonment.
• Magistrates’ Court — accepted guilty pleas to two offences and committed the appellant to the Crown Court for sentence.