R v Lewis Richard John Romanis

In sentencing for multiple child-harm offences, the court must apply the totality principle and give proper effect to relevant mitigation. Limited mental and emotional functioning may be a significant mitigating factor where the offender has mental or developmental difficulties. The sentencing court must carefully analyse whether those difficulties impaired the offender’s judgment, rational decision-making, or understanding of the nature and consequences of the offending, and explain its conclusions. A serious offence may still require immediate custody, despite prospects of rehabilitation and strong personal mitigation, where punishment cannot properly be achieved by suspension.

The appellant pleaded guilty to two offences of causing or allowing serious injury to a child, contrary to Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, section 5(1). He had shaken a seven-month-old baby, causing a subdural haemorrhage, and later caused severe bruising. The Crown Court at Warwick imposed concurrent terms of three years’ imprisonment.

On appeal against sentence, the issues were whether the sentencing judge had given adequate weight to the appellant’s limited intellectual functioning, emotional immaturity and psychological history; whether the total sentence was excessive; and whether any reduced sentence should be suspended.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentence of three years’ imprisonment was quashed and concurrent terms of 21 months’ imprisonment were substituted on each count.
2. The total sentence was manifestly excessive. Although the offending involved two separate and serious offences, totality would have required careful control of the aggregate sentence. Even taking a starting point of 18 months for each offence, an uplift to three and a half years before credit for guilty pleas was excessive.
3. The appellant’s limited mental and emotional functioning was a significant mitigating factor. The offence guideline expressly identified mental disorder, learning disability and lack of maturity as mitigation. The sentencing judge had recognised the appellant’s inability to care for a child but had not properly identified or weighed this mitigation.
4. The overarching Sentencing Council guideline concerning offenders with mental and developmental disorders also required consideration. The sentencing court had to analyse whether the appellant’s psychological difficulties impaired appropriate judgment, rational choices, or understanding of the nature and consequences of his actions, and explain its conclusions. That assessment would have reduced the sentence.
5. The sentence was reduced to two years before credit for the guilty pleas. Applying three months’ credit produced a sentence of 21 months. Suspension was refused. The court weighed the factors for and against suspension and concluded that, for offending of this seriousness, appropriate punishment could be achieved only by immediate custody.

• Crown Court at Warwick: On 19 June 2023, Mr Recorder Mason sentenced the appellant to concurrent terms of three years’ imprisonment for two offences of causing or allowing serious injury to a child.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was allowed. The sentences were quashed and concurrent terms of 21 months’ imprisonment were substituted.