R v Perry Aldrich

In sentencing for arson, culpability must be assessed on all the available evidence, including reliable evidence of mental disorder or learning disability. A court may place an offender in a higher culpability category where the evidence does not show a substantial reduction in responsibility and the conduct demonstrates conscious disregard of an obvious risk. Attempts to blame another person should not aggravate an offence where they do not hinder the investigation or trial and cause no adverse consequence to the person blamed. Exceptionally grave financial and human harm may justify a sentence outside the guideline range.

The appellant pleaded guilty to an alternative arson count after the prosecution offered no evidence on the more serious count. The Crown Court at St Albans sentenced him to 28 months’ imprisonment. The fire, started by burning garden cuttings in hot and dry conditions, spread to a residential block, causing extensive property damage and severe consequences for residents.

On appeal, the appellant argued that his mental disorder and learning disability reduced his culpability to the lowest guideline category. He also argued that his attempts to blame another person were wrongly treated as aggravating. The central issues were whether the sentence was wrongly assessed or manifestly excessive.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The court held that the sentencing judge was entitled to impose 28 months’ imprisonment.

1. Under section 232 of the Sentencing Code 2020, the court had to consider the available information about the appellant’s mental condition and the likely effect of custody. The judge had considered the psychiatric report, pre-sentence report and intermediary report. The principal psychiatric report addressed fitness to plead rather than culpability, and the other reports had not been disclosed. The judge was entitled to assess culpability on the evidence before him.
2. The appellant’s mental disorder and learning disability reduced culpability, but the evidence did not establish a reduction substantial enough to justify the lowest culpability category. The close proximity of the fire to combustible property, together with the appellant’s deliberate disregard of warnings about the dry conditions, supported medium culpability. The substantial reduction from the notional four-year sentence showed that the disabilities had been taken into account.
3. The court accepted the principle stated in R v Norris [2024] EWCA Crim 68: blaming another person should not aggravate an offence where the investigation or trial was not significantly impeded and the person blamed suffered no adverse consequence. It was unclear whether the sentencing judge had imposed any uplift for the lies. His remarks showed that the departure from the guideline range was based on the extreme harm caused.
4. The offence involved harm category 1 and medium, or category B1, culpability. The financial damage and the profound human consequences, including homelessness, loss of possessions and life-changing trauma, justified a sentence outside the guideline range. The sentence was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): [2025] EWCA Crim 1415 dismissed the appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at St Albans: sentenced the appellant on 20 June 2025 to 28 months’ imprisonment.