R v Hanaa Bennis

In sentencing for manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility, the assessment of retained responsibility is distinct from the question whether the partial defence is available. The guilty plea already acknowledges substantial impairment of self-control, so the guideline assessment must be made in that context. The sentencing judge must weigh all the circumstances. Mental disorder may mitigate seriousness, but it does not make the extent of harm irrelevant. The guideline for loss of control is not a calibration tool where the sentence proceeds on diminished responsibility. An extended licence is assessed by reference to the likely duration of dangerousness and the period needed for public protection. An evaluative sentence within the available range will not be arguable merely because another assessment was possible.

The applicant pleaded guilty to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility after killing her mother. The Central Criminal Court imposed an extended determinate sentence under section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020, comprising nine years’ custody and an extended licence of five years.

A single judge refused leave to appeal. On renewal, the applicant argued that insufficient weight had been given to her history of abuse, mental disorders and personal mitigation; that retained responsibility should have been assessed as low; that the loss of control guideline should have been used for calibration; and that the custodial and licence terms were excessive. The central issue was whether any of those grounds had arguable merit.

1. Renewed application refused. The sentencing judge had made no error of principle, had applied the relevant statutory framework and had followed the appropriate Sentencing Council Guideline.
2. The agreed psychiatric evidence that the applicant’s ability to exercise self-control was substantially impaired addressed the availability of the partial defence under section 2(1) of the Homicide Act 1957. It did not determine the separate sentencing assessment of retained responsibility. The plea to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility already acknowledged substantial impairment of self-control. The judge was therefore entitled to assess retained responsibility in that context and to place it in the medium category.
3. The assessment was supported by the applicant’s undiagnosed CPTSD, the exacerbating effect of considerable alcohol consumption, her anger, her decision to attend her mother’s flat alone, and her previous violence towards a police officer. The disagreement between the experts about impairment of rational judgment did not require a low assessment. The evaluative conclusion was reasonably open to the judge.
4. The loss of control guideline was not relevant for calibration. The applicant had pleaded guilty on the basis of diminished responsibility, and the judge correctly used the applicable guideline. The custodial term before credit for the guilty plea was towards the lower end of the relevant range.
5. The sustained attack and extent of the injuries were relevant to seriousness and could also bear on intention to kill. The relevance of CPTSD was not binary. The judge had to weigh all aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and had properly taken the applicant’s background into account.
6. For the extended licence, the judge had to assess at sentencing how long the applicant would remain dangerous and how long an extended licence would be necessary for public protection. The accepted high level of risk and uncertainty about future progress made five years a period properly open to the judge. No ground had arguable merit.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused: [2025] EWCA Crim 538.
2. Single judge — leave to appeal was refused.
3. Central Criminal Court — the applicant was sentenced on 18 January 2024 to an extended determinate sentence comprising nine years’ custody and five years’ extended licence.