Tarjit Singh v R

An impairment or disorder reduces sentencing culpability only where there is a sufficient connection between it and the offending. A diagnosis may provide context or motivation without mitigating deliberate sexual deception, violence or threats.

On an appeal against sentence, later consensual relations do not necessarily reduce the harm or culpability of earlier offending. Appellate intervention is not justified where the sentencing judge was entitled on the evidence to find particular vulnerability, significant planning and dangerousness. Fresh evidence may be admitted in the interests of justice despite being obtainable at the original hearing.

The appellant was convicted at Snarebrook Crown Court of three assaults by penetration, six assaults occasioning actual bodily harm and one threat to kill against three complainants. He received an extended sentence comprising ten years’ imprisonment and a three-year extended licence period on the lead count, with concurrent sentences for the remaining offences.

He appealed against sentence. He relied on fresh psychological, psychiatric and prison evidence, contending that gender dysphoria, personality disorder and alleged neurodevelopmental conditions reduced his culpability. He also challenged the treatment of acquittals, mitigation for prison conditions, guideline findings of vulnerability and planning, dangerousness, and an unlawful statutory surcharge.

1. The appeal was allowed only in relation to the statutory surcharge. It was common ground that the surcharge was unlawful because part of the offending pre-dated 1 October 2012. The court quashed it and otherwise dismissed the appeal against sentence.
2. The court admitted the fresh evidence under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. It was capable of belief, potentially relevant to the appeal and admissible at sentence. Although it could have been obtained earlier, both parties relied upon it and its admission enabled the appeal to be determined fairly. The court also observed that a pre-hearing expert discussion under the Criminal Procedure Rules would have assisted the preparation of the appeal.
3. Gender dysphoria and personality disorders did not reduce culpability. There was no sufficient connection between those conditions and the offending. The appellant’s conduct showed deliberate deception, including false representations and simulated ejaculation, which was inconsistent with the alleged theory-of-mind deficits. The court did not find that the appellant had ASD and found it unnecessary to determine whether he had ADHD.
4. The fact that consensual sexual relations continued after disclosure did not reduce the harm or culpability of the earlier offending. The sentencing judge had properly treated the appellant’s mental disorders and prison difficulties as mitigation, and no further reduction was justified.
5. The judge was entitled to find C1 particularly vulnerable and to find significant planning in the lead assault. The judge was also entitled to find the appellant dangerous. An extended licence period could take effect only on count 1, because that was the only count on which it was pronounced by the judge.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Allowed the appeal only to quash the unlawful statutory surcharge. The appeal against sentence was otherwise dismissed.
• Snarebrook Crown Court Convicted the appellant on 24 and 25 May 2022 and, on 25 May 2022, imposed an extended sentence of ten years’ imprisonment with a three-year extended licence period on count 1, alongside concurrent sentences.