Williams, R. v

In sentencing for manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility, the degree of retained responsibility is an overall assessment for the sentencing judge, informed by medical evidence and all relevant information. A jury’s verdict does not compel a particular assessment, but the judge must sentence consistently with it.

The alternative statutory capacities relevant to diminished responsibility may overlap and should not be artificially separated. An uncharacteristic killing of a spouse is not, without more, a domestic-abuse case. The absence of controlling, coercive, threatening or abusive behaviour may mean that the Domestic Abuse guideline does not apply. Aggravating features, including a sustained attack, must be assessed in the context of the offender’s substantial mental impairment.

The offender strangled and killed his wife after a long marriage. He was tried for murder but the jury acquitted him after hearing conflicting psychiatric evidence and accepting the partial defence of diminished responsibility.

His guilty plea to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility was then accepted. The Crown Court sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment, having assessed his retained responsibility as low and allowed full credit for his plea.

The Attorney General sought leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer the sentence as unduly lenient. The central issues were the assessment of retained responsibility, the relevance of the Domestic Abuse guideline, and the aggravating weight of the two-stage strangulation.

1. The application for leave to refer the sentence as unduly lenient was dismissed. The court was wholly unpersuaded that the five-year sentence was unduly lenient.

2. The Sentencing Council guideline required the judge to assess the extent to which responsibility was diminished by the mental disorder, by reference to the medical evidence and all relevant information. Retained responsibility was an overall evaluative assessment for the sentencing judge. Although the jury’s verdict did not require a finding of low retained responsibility or acceptance of every aspect of the defence expert’s evidence, the judge had independently assessed that evidence consistently with the verdict.

3. It was unhelpful to atomise the evidence and verdict into the three alternative capacities relevant to diminished responsibility. There was substantial overlap between impaired understanding of conduct, rational judgment and self-control. The judge had been entitled to find low retained responsibility on the evidence of serious mental illness.

4. The case was not properly characterised as domestic abuse. There was no history of controlling, coercive, threatening or abusive conduct. The Sentencing Council’s Overarching Principles—Domestic Abuse guideline did not establish that every out-of-character act of violence against a spouse or partner in the home required a more severe sentence. The application of that guideline, including to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility, depended on the facts.

5. The two-stage strangulation was aggravating, but the judge had been entitled to give it limited weight in light of the offender’s substantial mental impairment. The killing was wholly explained by an undiagnosed and untreated illness. The offender immediately raised the alarm, admitted what he had done and showed overwhelming remorse.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The Attorney General’s application under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer the sentence as unduly lenient was dismissed.
• Crown Court: Following a jury’s acquittal of murder on the ground of diminished responsibility, the offender was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility.