R v Thomas Black

When a sentencing guideline applies to an offender’s mental disorder, the court must assess the disorder individually and in relation to the issues in the case. The disorder must be considered even when it is not linked to the offence, and its cause does not make it irrelevant. Where custody is unavoidable, its additional impact may affect sentence length or suspension, but only in a limited way. The court must consider both that impact and any personal mitigation. A flawed explanation does not necessarily justify appellate interference if, after taking the disorder into account, the sentence remains warranted and is not manifestly excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty to assault by penetration and was sentenced by the Crown Court at Chelmsford to eight years’ imprisonment. He appealed against sentence on the sole ground that insufficient weight had been given to his mental ill-health. His post-traumatic stress disorder followed a fatal road collision after the offence. The sentencing judge acknowledged the disorder but gave it no significant mitigating weight because of its cause. The central issue was whether that approach was wrong and, if so, whether the sentence was nevertheless manifestly excessive.

Appeal dismissed.

1. The offence was correctly categorised as involving level 2A harm and culpability. The seriousness of the sustained sexual assault, the complainant’s vulnerability and intoxication, the recording and dissemination of images, and other aggravating features made immediate custody inevitable. No hospital or hybrid order was available.
2. PTSD was within Annex A of the applicable Overarching Sentencing Guideline. The guideline required an individualistic assessment focused on the issues in the case. A disorder was to be considered whether linked to the offence or not. Its relevance could extend to the type of disposal, the length or suspension of custody, the additional burden imposed by imprisonment, and personal mitigation.
3. The sentencing judge’s reasoning appeared to conflate the cause of the PTSD with its effect. The fact that the disorder arose from the fatal collision did not prevent it from being taken into account. The judge was nevertheless right that it did not reduce culpability for the sexual assault.
4. The available evidence gave some support to the submission that custody would weigh more heavily on the appellant, but that submission was limited and the appropriate reduction was conceded to be marginal. The fresh therapist’s report did not materially assist, and the court proceeded only on the basis that the appellant’s mental state remained fragile.
5. Taking the disorder into account, the seriousness of the offence and the inevitable custodial term, eight years’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 11 December 2024, the appeal against sentence was dismissed: [2024] EWCA Crim 1644.
• Crown Court at Chelmsford — Following the guilty plea, the appellant was sentenced on 12 January 2024 to eight years’ imprisonment.