R v IGG

A sentencing judge may reduce a custodial sentence where an offender’s personal circumstances make custody more onerous than for prisoners generally. That principle applies to long sentences as well as short sentences, although its weight may be limited where neurodiversity is common in custody. Expert psychological evidence does not determine culpability; the sentencing judge must make the evaluative assessment. On appeal, the court will respect the sentencing judge’s assessment of aggravating and mitigating factors, particularly where the judge observed the offender and considered all relevant matters. Sentencing is not an exact science. A sentence will stand where it falls within the appropriate range and is not manifestly excessive.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter at the Crown Court at Bristol after her infant daughter died following violent shaking. She was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment. She appealed against sentence, arguing that insufficient weight had been given to her neurodiversity, age and immaturity, previous care of her children, personal circumstances, delay and the particular impact of custody.

The Crown Court had placed the offending in category B under the applicable unlawful act manslaughter guideline and treated aggravating features as taking culpability to the top of the range. The central issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive because the mitigating features had been given insufficient weight.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant did not challenge the categorisation of the offence or the assessment that the aggravating features placed culpability at the top of the applicable range. The issue was whether the overall sentence was excessive.
2. The court accepted that an offender’s personal circumstances may justify a reduction where imprisonment would be more onerous for that offender than for the prison population generally. That principle applies to long sentences as well as short sentences. Its weight may nevertheless be limited where a substantial part of the prison population has neurodiverse conditions.
3. The sentencing judge was entitled to decide that the appellant’s age, immaturity and neurodiversity did not reduce her culpability, notwithstanding the contrary view expressed by the psychologist. The judge had considered the report, observed the appellant during the trial and was well placed to assess the connection between the conditions and the offending.
4. The evidence that the appellant had previously cared for her children provided little mitigation in light of the earlier shaking incident. The remaining mitigation was principally concerned with the effect of imprisonment, which had some but limited significance. The judge had identified and expressly considered the matters relied upon, including the delay and the appellant’s personal circumstances.
5. Weighing aggravating and mitigating features is not an exact science. Different sentencing judges may properly select different points within the applicable range. Standing back, the sentence was within the appropriate range and could not be described as manifestly excessive. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2026] EWCA Crim 419, the appeal against the 15-year sentence was dismissed.
2. Crown Court at Bristol: Before Mr Justice Saini, the appellant was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment.