R v Erik Feld

A mental disorder may mitigate a murder minimum term under Sentencing Act 2020, Schedule 21, paragraph 10(c), even where it cannot establish diminished responsibility under the Homicide Act 1957. The material question is whether the disorder reduced culpability at the time of the offence, and to what extent.

The extent of any reduction is primarily for the sentencing judge, who must assess all the evidence and may treat an expert report as important but not conclusive. Deliberate planning and premeditation may remain a significant aggravating feature where the evidence shows that the offender understood the conduct and retained the capacity for self-control.

The applicant was convicted of murder at the Central Criminal Court on 23 March 2023. On 14 June 2023, Bryan J imposed the mandatory life sentence and set a minimum term of 28 years, less time spent on remand.

Following the single judge’s refusal, the applicant renewed his application for permission to appeal against sentence. He contended that the sentencing judge had confused the mitigation in Schedule 21, paragraph 10(c) of the Sentencing Act 2020 with diminished responsibility, had failed properly to follow the psychiatric evidence, and had overstated aggravating factors. The central issue was whether the minimum term was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

1. The court refused the renewed application for permission to appeal. The 28-year minimum term was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive.

2. Schedule 21, paragraph 10(c) of the Sentencing Act 2020 allows a mental disorder or disability to mitigate a murder sentence where it lowers culpability, even though it does not satisfy section 2(1) of the Homicide Act 1957. The question is whether, and to what extent, the disorder reduced the offender’s blameworthiness at the time of the offence.

3. Although parts of the sentencing remarks used language associated with substantial impairment and diminished responsibility, the sentencing judge had applied the correct test. He found that the applicant’s personality disorder caused a limited reduction in culpability. The extent of that reduction was quintessentially a matter for the sentencing judge, particularly as he had presided over the trial.

4. The psychiatric report did not require a different result. It stated that the disorder had not substantially impaired the applicant’s ability to understand his conduct, form rational judgment, or exercise self-control. The judge was entitled to assess that evidence with the wider trial evidence, including instances in which the applicant had controlled impulses of rage and potential violence.

5. The judge was also entitled to treat the extensive planning and premeditation, extreme violence, vulnerability of the victim, and relevant previous convictions as aggravating. The personality disorder did not explain away the planning or reduce its aggravating force on the evidence. The aggravating factors outweighed the limited mitigation and justified the uplift from the agreed 25-year starting point to 28 years.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for permission to appeal against the minimum term refused.
• Central Criminal Court: applicant convicted of murder on 23 March 2023 and sentenced on 14 June 2023 to life imprisonment with a 28-year minimum term, less 506 days spent on remand.