R v Frank Sines

When sentencing an offender who appears to have a mental disorder, the court may proceed without a further medical report where an existing report adequately addresses longstanding diagnoses and symptoms and a fresh report is unnecessary. A later deterioration does not automatically require an adjournment. A custodial sentence may remain justified where the offence is sufficiently serious after balancing mental health and other mitigation against aggravating features, including relevant previous convictions and voluntary intoxication. On breach of a suspended sentence order, activation is unjust only where new and exceptional factors, absent when the order was imposed, justify that conclusion. The seriousness of the original offending and the offender’s compliance with the order remain relevant to the terms activated.

The appellant pleaded guilty to assaulting an emergency worker and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence. The offence occurred during the operational periods of two suspended sentence orders, imposed and later amended in relation to earlier offences including assaults, criminal damage, affray and robbery.

The sentencing judge imposed four weeks’ imprisonment for the index offence, activated both suspended sentences with reduced terms, and ordered the terms to run consecutively. The appellant argued that the judge should have adjourned sentence under section 232 of the Sentencing Act 2020 for an updated psychiatric report, that the sentence for the index offence was manifestly excessive, and that activation of the suspended sentences was unjust. The central issues were whether a further report was necessary and whether the total sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The total sentence of 15 months and four weeks was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.
2. Section 232 of the Sentencing Act 2020 requires a medical report where an offender appears to suffer from a mental disorder unless the court considers a report unnecessary. The sentencing judge was entitled to proceed on the basis of the March 2022 psychiatric report. The appellant’s diagnoses and associated symptoms were longstanding, and the updated report obtained for the appeal described substantially similar problems. A fresh report was therefore unnecessary, despite the serious deterioration and hospital treatment disclosed after the earlier report (paras [9]–[14]).
3. The judge was entitled to treat previous convictions for assaulting emergency workers and alcohol consumed before the offence as serious aggravating factors. She also took the appellant’s mental health and personal mitigation into account. The index offence involved threatening use of a bottle as a weapon, and the conclusion that custody was justified was open to her. The four-week sentence was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle (paras [15]–[16]).
4. The alleged failure to comply with curfew requirements by interfering with the electronic tag did not demonstrate additional vulnerability requiring further weight (para [15]).
5. Under the Overarching Guideline on Breach of a Suspended Sentence Order, the court dealing with breach must remember that the original sentencing court had determined that custody was appropriate. Only new and exceptional factors, absent when the order was imposed, are relevant to whether activation would be unjust. The appellant’s psychiatric difficulties were longstanding and had been addressed in the earlier Crown Court proceedings. The judge was therefore entitled to activate both orders. The reduced terms reasonably and proportionately reflected the appellant’s compliance with them (paras [17]–[19]).

• Crown Court at Winchester: On 25 October 2022, HHJ Evans imposed four weeks’ imprisonment for assaulting an emergency worker, activated two suspended sentence orders with reduced terms of one month and 14 months respectively, and ordered consecutive service. The total sentence was 15 months and four weeks.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The court upheld the refusal to adjourn for a further psychiatric report, the sentence for the index offence, and activation of the suspended sentence orders.