R v ARH

A sentencing court may impose immediate custody despite substantial mental-health mitigation and a recommended mental-health treatment requirement where the seriousness of the offending makes custody unavoidable. The court must take the offender’s mental disorder, traumatic history and rehabilitation needs into account, but those matters do not displace punishment and public protection in a serious case. An appellate court will not interfere with a sentencing judge’s assessment where the judge considered the relevant mitigation and the sentence was neither erroneous in principle nor manifestly excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty to attempted wounding with intent and possessing a bladed article after she ran at a local shopkeeper with a large kitchen knife and caused a cut to his arm. At the Inner London Crown Court, HHJ David Richards imposed 40 months’ imprisonment for the attempted wounding and three months’ imprisonment concurrently for the knife offence.

She appealed against sentence. She contended that her psychiatric conditions, traumatic childhood and the recommendation for a mental-health treatment requirement justified substantially greater credit for her late guilty plea and a non-custodial or suspended sentence. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge had failed properly to apply the mitigation arising from her mental health and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The 40-month sentence for attempted wounding with intent was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.
2. The judge was entitled to allow only 15 per cent credit for the late guilty plea. Although the appellant’s mental health had deteriorated during the proceedings, there was no basis to conclude that her condition was materially different when she pleaded guilty from the earlier period in which she could and should have entered that plea. The allowance was well within the judge’s discretion.
3. The court accepted that the appellant had suffered serious childhood trauma and had significant mental-health difficulties, including complex PTSD and an emotionally unstable personality disorder. Those matters helped explain her impaired judgment and required careful consideration in mitigation. The sentencing judge had taken them fully into account.
4. However, the gravity of the offending required immediate custody. The appellant had armed herself with a large kitchen knife, ran at the victim and attempted to stab him. The fact that the physical injury was limited did not reduce the seriousness of the intended violence. A recommended mental-health treatment requirement could in an appropriate case be an alternative to a moderate custodial sentence, but it could not properly replace custody here.
5. The sentence had already been reduced to the lowest level the judge considered appropriate after mitigation. The remaining custodial term was too long to suspend. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was dismissed: [2024] EWCA Crim 1220.
• Crown Court at Inner London: On 19 July 2024, HHJ David Richards imposed 40 months’ imprisonment for attempted wounding with intent and three months’ imprisonment concurrently for possessing a bladed article.