Rezazadeh, R v

A mental disorder is ordinarily relevant to sentence through its effect on an offender’s culpability when the offence was committed. Its effect may range from slight to substantial. A deterioration by the sentencing date is separately material where it affects the offender’s ability to serve custody or requires a different sentencing order.

Mental illness does not automatically reduce culpability. The sentencer may take account of self-induced psychosis, failure to take medication, substance misuse, planning and premeditation. In racially or religiously aggravated criminal damage, harm may include serious and widespread community fear and distress beyond the monetary value of the damage.

The appellant pleaded guilty to five offences of racially aggravated criminal damage after attacking five mosques in Birmingham during one night. He used weapons, wore dark clothing to disguise himself and caused substantial damage and alarm. He suffered from psychosis, which the psychiatric evidence attributed to his voluntary cannabis use, and had not complied with medication.

At Birmingham Crown Court, HHJ Chambers QC assessed culpability as high and harm as category 1. The judge increased the pre-plea sentence from two to five years to reflect the high level of religious aggravation, then allowed 25 per cent credit for the guilty pleas and imposed concurrent sentences of 45 months’ imprisonment.

The appeal alleged that the judge had insufficiently accounted for the appellant’s mental illness and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentence of 45 months’ imprisonment was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.
2. The court rejected the submission that the appellant’s mental condition at the date of sentence should have reduced culpability for the offences. The relevant question was his mental condition when the offences were committed. The guidance in PS, Dahir and CF [2019] EWCA Crim 2286 concerned that assessment. A later deterioration may require a different order, such as one addressing an inability to serve imprisonment, but that issue did not arise.
3. The sentencing judge had not ignored the psychiatric evidence. He was entitled to find that responsibility remained high. The psychosis was self-induced through voluntary cannabis use, the appellant had not taken his medication, and the offences were planned and premeditated. He selected five targets, armed himself and sought to disguise himself.
4. The judge properly assessed the harm by reference to the severe fear and distress caused to the local and wider Muslim community. That impact greatly exceeded the financial cost of repairing the damage. The increase from two years to five years before plea credit was significant, but it properly reflected the sole religious motivation and the serious community impact. As a local judge, he was well placed to assess that impact. Concurrent sentences for the five offences were appropriate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the sentence appeal in [2020] EWCA Crim 607.
• Crown Court at Birmingham: on 28 November 2019, HHJ Chambers QC imposed concurrent sentences of 45 months’ imprisonment for five offences of racially aggravated criminal damage.