Mitigation Wears Thin: Appellate Confirmation that Persistent Violent Recidivism Can Substantially Diminish Psychiatric Mitigation and Justify Higher/Consecutive Starting Points for Multi‑Victim Knife Threats — R v Docta [2025] EWCA Crim 1144

Introduction

This commentary examines the decision in R v Docta [2025] EWCA Crim 1144, a sentencing appeal in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) arising from a sequence of domestic- and public-facing violent offences involving threats with a knife, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and assault on an emergency worker. The appellant, aged 35, received a total sentence of 34 months’ imprisonment. A single judge initially refused permission to appeal on the basis that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. On renewal, the Full Court granted permission limited to one ground: that the sentencing judge had failed to have regard to personal mitigation disclosed in a psychiatric report.

The appeal required the Court to balance psychiatric mitigation (including a diagnosis of mixed anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder) against the appellant’s prolific and serious history of violent offending, the presence of multiple victims, and the aggravating feature of breaching a conditional discharge. It also presented a practical point about the weight to be given to defence-instructed psychiatric evidence where the offender declined to cooperate with the Probation Service for a pre-sentence report (PSR).

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. In doing so, it articulated a clear principle: repeated and serious violent recidivism can attenuate the weight of personal mitigation (including psychiatric material), particularly where the offender has refused to engage with the PSR process; and multi-victim knife threats can justify higher starting points or consecutive sentences.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court accepted that the psychiatric report contained personal mitigation that should have been considered more carefully by the sentencing judge.
However, given the appellant’s extensive violent history (22 convictions for 43 offences) and the sustained nature of the incident, any discount for mitigation would have been minimal and offset by material aggravating features.
Key aggravating factors, not explicitly reflected in the judge’s calculation, included: (i) breach of a conditional discharge for a prior violent offence; and (ii) multiple victims for the knife threats, justifying a higher starting point up to the statutory maximum or, alternatively, consecutive terms.
The Court observed that refusing to attend a PSR interview while cooperating with a defence psychiatrist gave the appearance of system manipulation, reducing the weight of the psychiatric report in the absence of a PSR.
While obiter, the Court remarked it was “something of a surprise” that the appellant had not previously been assessed as dangerous, signalling concerns about longer-term risk.
The appeal against sentence was dismissed: 34 months was not manifestly excessive.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

No prior authorities were expressly cited in the judgment. The Court’s reasoning rested upon well-established sentencing principles and the Sentencing Council guideline for threatening with a bladed article in a public place, alongside general doctrines on totality, aggravation, mitigation, and the limited scope for appellate intervention save where a sentence is wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. The Court’s articulation of how personal mitigation diminishes in the face of prolific violent recidivism, and the treatment of multiple knife-threat victims, refines the application of those principles in practice.

Legal Reasoning

1) Guideline application and starting points

The sentencing judge used the Sentencing Council guideline for threatening with a bladed article in a public place, selecting a starting point of 3 years 6 months, then applying a guilty plea reduction to arrive at 31 months for those counts. The Court of Appeal accepted the guideline’s applicability and, crucially, went further: the presence of two separate victims for the threats warranted either (a) a higher starting point at the statutory maximum of four years, or (b) alternative consecutive starting points (e.g., two years each) for the two threats. This anchoring in the guideline shows the Court’s readiness to ratchet sentences upward where multiplicity of victims is present in knife-threat cases.

2) Multiple victims justify higher starting points or consecutive terms

The Court was explicit that the multiplicity of victims in knife-threat offences is a powerful aggravator. It endorsed two lawful methods to reflect this:

Adopting the maximum guideline starting point (four years) to address the aggregate seriousness; or
Setting separate starting points on each count and imposing consecutive terms, aligning with the general principle that offences against different victims may properly attract consecutive sentences, subject to totality.

This guidance will be influential whenever a single episode contains distinct knife threats toward multiple individuals.

3) The diminishing weight of personal mitigation in the face of persistent violent recidivism

The Court crystallised an important sentencing insight:

There comes a time when repeated offending and repeated custodial sentences wear away the significance and impact of the sort of personal mitigation identified by Dr Prosser.

While the psychiatric report provided genuine mitigation, the appellant’s entrenched violent record meant any discount would have been modest, particularly given that previous custodial sentences had failed to deter or rehabilitate. This principle tightens the link between criminal history and the calibration of mitigation, especially in serious, recurrent violence.

4) Weight of defence psychiatric evidence when no PSR is obtained

The appellant refused to attend the probation interview, resulting in no PSR, yet cooperated with a defence-instructed psychiatrist. The Court held that this combination “has at least the appearance” of attempting to manipulate the system and reduces the weight that can reasonably be accorded to the defence psychiatric report. It also noted the analytical value of reading psychiatric evidence alongside a PSR—far preferable to relying on defence-commissioned material in isolation. This is an important practice point: non-cooperation with the PSR process can materially blunt mental health mitigation.

5) Failure to reflect breach of a conditional discharge

The appellant offended while subject to a conditional discharge for a violent offence. The Court characterised this as an aggravating feature that would have increased the overall sentence beyond 34 months had it been explicitly included in the judge’s calculation. This underscores that sentencing must reflect compliance failures with existing orders as a marker of poor rehabilitative prospects and heightened culpability.

6) Plea reduction

The judge’s reduction from 42 months (3 years 6 months) to 31 months on the knife-threat counts mirrors the standard one-quarter discount for an early guilty plea in the Crown Court. The Court of Appeal did not disturb this, illustrating that where guideline starting points are appropriately chosen, orthodox plea discounts will stand even when the totality is scrutinised.

7) Totality and concurrent vs consecutive sentences

The sentencing judge passed 18 months for the assault on Ms Green, concurrent with the knife-threat sentences, and three months consecutive for assaulting an emergency worker because “the victim is different.” The Court approved the principle that different victims often justify consecutive sentences and, indeed, indicated the two knife-threat counts could have been treated consecutively as well. The overall structure remained within totality, and the appellate court’s comfort with the resulting 34 months underlines an approach that tolerates robust aggregation where multiple victims are harmed over a prolonged episode.

8) The appellate threshold: “manifestly excessive”

The Court reiterated the constrained appellate role. Even though it accepted that the sentencing judge did not explicitly engage with all mitigating features, this did not convert the result into a “manifestly excessive” sentence. In the round, the omitted aggravation and the seriousness of the conduct and history neutralised any mitigation that might have been allowed. Upholding the sentence despite identified imperfections reinforces the corrective yet deferential posture of appellate review in sentencing.

9) Dangerousness (obiter)

The Court remarked it was surprising the appellant had not previously been assessed as dangerous. While not determinative here, the comment signals that persistent violent conduct of this kind may, in a future case, support an assessment of significant risk of serious harm and the imposition of an extended sentence where statutory criteria are met.

Impact

Weight of Psychiatric Mitigation: Defence psychiatric evidence will attract limited weight if the defendant refuses to cooperate with the PSR process. Practitioners should ensure full engagement with probation to maximise the credibility and utility of mitigation.
Recidivism Blunts Mitigation: For entrenched violent offenders, even authentic mental health mitigation may carry reduced sentencing impact, especially where prior custodial sentences have failed to deter.
Multi‑Victim Knife Threats: Sentencers are encouraged to consider either the guideline maximum starting point or consecutive sentences to capture the gravity of threatening multiple individuals with a blade in the same incident.
Conditional Discharge Breaches: Offending in breach of a conditional discharge for violence is a significant aggravator and should be specifically reflected in sentence length.
Appeal Strategy: The decision recalibrates expectations on sentence appeals predicated on overlooked mitigation; unless omission produces an outcome that is wrong in principle or manifestly excessive, the Court may decline to interfere, especially where countervailing aggravation exists.
Domestic Abuse Context: The case underscores that domestic violence accompanied by weapon threats, particularly where third parties are endangered, will be treated as seriously aggravating and may press total sentences upward despite personal mitigation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Manifestly excessive: An appellate test asking whether the sentence is so high that it falls outside the range reasonably open to the sentencing judge, even accounting for discretion and case-specific facts.
Personal mitigation: Factors reducing culpability or meriting mercy (e.g., mental ill-health, traumatic background, positive steps toward rehabilitation). They influence but do not determine sentence, especially in serious repeat offending.
Pre-sentence report (PSR): A probation assessment provided to the court on risk, rehabilitation prospects, and contextual factors. Non-cooperation can reduce the weight of personal mitigation and may be viewed adversely.
Defence psychiatric report: Expert evidence commissioned by the defence. It carries greater weight when supported by, or assessed alongside, a PSR. Standing alone, particularly where the PSR is absent due to refusal, its impact is reduced.
Conditional discharge: A sentencing order where conviction is recorded but punishment is deferred subject to good behaviour. Committing a new offence during the operational period aggravates the new sentence.
Starting point: A guideline benchmark sentence before aggravating/mitigating adjustments and before any guilty plea discount.
Consecutive vs concurrent: Consecutive terms run one after another; concurrent terms run at the same time. Offences against different victims often justify consecutive terms, subject to totality.
Totality: The requirement that the overall sentence be just and proportionate to the overall offending, not merely the sum of its parts.
Guilty plea credit: Reduction in sentence (typically up to one-third, decreasing the later the plea) to reflect admissions of guilt and consequent savings to the justice system.
Dangerousness: A statutory assessment of whether an offender poses a significant risk of serious harm by committing further specified offences, potentially engaging extended sentences.
Threatening with a bladed article guideline: The Sentencing Council’s framework that sets bands and starting points for threatening with a knife in a public place, with a maximum of four years’ custody.

Conclusion

R v Docta tightens and clarifies important sentencing dynamics at the intersection of knife-enabled violence, domestic abuse, and repeat offending. The Court of Appeal affirmed that:

Persistent, serious recidivism can substantially erode the weight of personal mitigation, even where psychiatric diagnoses exist.
Refusal to engage with the PSR process diminishes the influence of defence psychiatric reports and may suggest system manipulation.
Multiple victims in knife-threat cases may justify the guideline maximum starting point or consecutive sentences, with totality controlling the final figure.
Breach of a conditional discharge for a violent offence is a potent aggravator that should be expressly reflected in sentence length.
Appellate intervention will remain rare unless a sentence is wrong in principle or truly outside the reasonable range.

In the broader legal context, Docta provides practitioners and sentencers with a structured approach to balancing psychiatric mitigation against entrenched violent recidivism and strengthens the doctrinal basis for more robust sentences where multiple victims are threatened with a knife. It also sends a clear procedural message: cooperation with probation in the PSR process is not optional if an offender seeks to rely on personal mitigation to meaningful effect.