R v Bethany Holland

When sentencing an offender with a mental disorder, the court must address culpability under the Impairment Guideline separately from mitigation. It must decide whether there is a sufficient connection between the impairment and the offending and, if so, assess the extent of any reduction. The reduction must be reflected in the sentencing exercise, without counting the same impairment again as mitigation. Where culpability indicators point both towards higher and reduced culpability, an intermediate category may be appropriate. Frank admissions in interview may carry slight mitigating weight. If the resulting sentence is less than four years, no issue of dangerousness arises under the Sentencing Act 2020.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Kingston upon Hull Crown Court to attempted robbery and possessing a bladed article. She received an extended determinate sentence of eight years under section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020, comprising four years’ custody and a four-year extension period, with a concurrent 15-month sentence for possessing the knife.

She renewed her application for leave to appeal, arguing that her mental illness reduced her culpability, that the resulting sentence could not justify an extended sentence, and that her admissions in interview should have been treated as mitigation. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge had erred by failing to address reduced culpability under the Impairment Guideline.

Leave to appeal was granted and the appeal was allowed to the extent stated. The extended determinate sentence of eight years was quashed. A determinate sentence of 40 months was substituted for the attempted robbery, while the concurrent 15-month sentence for possessing a bladed article remained unchanged.

1. The sentencing exercise was difficult because the offending was serious, the appellant was mentally unwell at the time, and she had recent and concerning convictions. However, the sentencing judge referred only to the robbery guideline and did not address the Impairment Guideline.
2. The court held that reduced culpability had to be considered separately from mitigation. Where the evidence disclosed a sufficient connection between the mental impairment and the offending, the sentencer had to decide whether culpability was reduced and assess the extent of that reduction. The psychiatric evidence, the pre-sentence report and the supporting professional evidence established such a connection. The failure to undertake that analysis was an error of principle.
3. The reduction was reflected by moving from culpability Category A to Category B under the robbery guideline. Category B was appropriate because the case contained both the Category A feature of taking and using a knife and the Category C feature of mental disability linked to the offending. The knife was not counted again as aggravation because it had already been considered in culpability. The mental health impairment was likewise not counted again in mitigation.
4. Significant aggravation remained from the previous convictions and the recent expiry of the earlier licence period. The fact that the offence was attempted and the appellant’s frank admissions in interview provided mitigation. The resulting notional sentence after trial was 54 months, reduced by 25 per cent for the guilty plea to 40 months. Because that sentence was below four years, no issue of dangerousness arose under section 280 of the Sentencing Act 2020, and an extended sentence was unavailable. Mental-health risks were to be managed through safeguarding processes under the Mental Health Act 1983.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Granted leave, quashed the eight-year extended determinate sentence and substituted a determinate sentence of 40 months. The concurrent 15-month sentence remained unchanged.
• Crown Court at Kingston upon Hull — Imposed an extended determinate sentence of eight years under section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020, together with a concurrent 15-month sentence.