R v Andrew Mellis

When deciding whether an offender is dangerous, a sentencing judge is not bound by psychiatric or probation assessments. The judge may depart from them where they are inconclusive or conditional, provided the reasons enable the offender to understand the conclusion. The adequacy of those reasons depends on the circumstances, and brief reasons may suffice. The totality principle may be applied through concurrent sentences and an uplift to a lead count reflecting overall criminality. On an appeal alleging manifest excess, the court considers the number and seriousness of the offences, brutality, impact on victims and mitigation.

Following a trial at the Crown Court at Lewes, the applicant was convicted of three rapes against V1, a former partner, and one rape against V2, an unconnected woman. On 6 March 2023 he received concurrent sentences, including an extended sentence of 18 years on a multiple-incident count, comprising 14 years’ custody and four years’ extended licence.

He sought leave to appeal sentence on the grounds that the judge had wrongly found him dangerous without adequately explaining departure from psychiatric and probation reports; that the sentence was manifestly excessive and failed to reflect totality; and that mitigation, including delay and its effects, was insufficiently considered. The central issues were whether the dangerousness finding and reasons were sustainable, and whether the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

Leave to appeal was refused.

1. Dangerousness. The reports did not conclusively determine that the applicant was not dangerous. The sentencing judge was entitled to reach her own conclusion, having regard in particular to the applicant’s lack of insight into his offending and lack of understanding of its impact. The probation assessment was conditional on treatment compliance, abstinence from drugs and alcohol, and meaningful engagement with therapy. The psychiatric report also identified concern about further sexual offending in an intimate relationship.
2. Reasons for departing from reports. In JW [2009] EWCA Crim 390, the court recognised that a sentencing court is not bound by expert assessments but should explain in sufficient detail why it rejects them. The adequacy of the explanation depends on the circumstances and whether the defendant can understand the reasons for departure. Although the judge’s reasoning was brief, it was adequate in this case.
3. Totality and excess. The judge expressly considered totality. Making the sentences concurrent and increasing the sentence on count 3 to reflect the overall criminality was a fair application of that principle. The offence categorisation was not disputed. In assessing the sentence overall, the court was entitled to give substantial weight to the number of serious offences, their brutality and their prolonged psychological impact on both victims.
4. Mitigation and final sentence. The judge had considered personal mitigation, including the applicant’s good character references, together with the delay. The 14-year custodial term, finding of dangerousness and four-year extended licence period were justified and were not manifestly excessive.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave to appeal sentence was refused.
2. Crown Court at Lewes: The applicant was convicted on 8 August 2022 of three rapes against V1 and one rape against V2.
3. Crown Court at Lewes: On 6 March 2023, concurrent sentences were imposed, including an extended sentence of 18 years on count 3, comprising 14 years’ custody and four years’ extended licence.