R v IAG

In sentencing serious offences, a mental disorder which greatly reduces culpability may justify imposing a different type of sentence rather than merely reducing the custodial term. A community order may be appropriate where it offers a better prospect of rehabilitation and the court retains powers to respond to breach. This may apply even where the offence engages the special custodial sentence provisions of the Sentencing Code, although non-custodial disposal will be rare. Suspension of a special custodial sentence is subject to stricter limits and will ordinarily require exceptional circumstances. A sentence may be lenient without being unduly lenient, in which case an Attorney General’s reference will be refused.

The offender was convicted at Wood Green Crown Court of three sexual offences against his young daughter. The offences occurred during a period of severe psychotic and manic illness. The judge initially imposed suspended custodial sentences, but later varied them to concurrent community orders after recognising the statutory complication concerning a special custodial sentence.

The Attorney General sought leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, arguing that the reductions for mental disorder were excessive and that immediate custody was required. The central issue was whether the offender’s reduced culpability and rehabilitation prospects entitled the judge to impose a community order, or whether the sentence was unduly lenient.

1. Disposition. Leave to refer was granted because the Attorney General’s submissions raised important sentencing points. The reference was nevertheless refused. The sentence was lenient, but not unduly so, and the offender’s total sentence remained as imposed on 31 March 2025.
2. Mental disorder and culpability. The Court accepted the unchallenged expert evidence that the offender was suffering from a severe psychotic and manic episode when the offences were committed. The sentencing judge was entitled to find that the disorder was directly linked to the offending, greatly reduced culpability and made it unlikely that the offences would have been committed without the illness.
3. Choice of sentence. The judge was entitled to consider the evidence heard at trial, the offender’s insight into his condition, his compliance with medication, the time spent on remand and the period spent subject to an electronically monitored curfew. In those circumstances, she was entitled to impose a different type of sentence rather than merely reduce the custodial term. A community order offered a better prospect of rehabilitation than lengthy imprisonment while preserving the court’s ability to impose a different sentence following breach.
4. Special custodial sentences. The Court added a reminder, referring to R v John (Ben) [2022] EWCA Crim 54; [2022] 1 WLR 2625, that suspension of a special custodial sentence under section 278 of the Sentencing Code arises only where the appropriate custodial term does not exceed 12 months. Because of the practical complications, suspension will be appropriate only in exceptional circumstances.
5. Further orders. The prosecution was directed to notify the Registrar whether an application would be made concerning counts 4 to 10. The Crown Court record was corrected so that the surcharge was £85 rather than £187.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). On an Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the Court granted leave but refused the reference, holding that the sentence was not unduly lenient.
2. Crown Court at Wood Green. The offender was convicted and initially received suspended custodial sentences on 31 March 2025. Following a later slip-rule hearing, the sentences were varied on 7 May 2025 to concurrent two-year community orders.