REGINA v Catt

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, a 36-year-old married woman with two young children and a complex obstetric history, pleaded guilty in the Crown Court to administering poison with intent to procure a miscarriage contrary to section 58 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. She was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment and subsequently challenged the length of her sentence by leave of a single judge.

Her obstetric history included multiple late-stage pregnancies, some concealed and some resulting in terminations or surrender for adoption. In 2009, she became pregnant again and, despite being beyond the legal limit for termination under the Abortion Act 1967 (24 weeks), she sought information and acquired abortifacient drugs, which she is inferred to have taken close to full term (approximately 38 to 40 weeks' gestation).

She maintained a false narrative that she had undergone a lawful termination at a clinic, which she repeated to medical professionals and police during extensive interviews. Her computer searches and actions demonstrated planning and concealment. The body of the child was never recovered, and she refused to disclose its location.

The sentencing judge found the offence extremely serious, involving a deliberate termination close to birth of a child presumptively capable of being born alive. The judge gave full credit for the early guilty plea but emphasized the aggravating features, including concealment, deceit, and the timing of the termination. The judge imposed an eight-year sentence, reflecting culpability between manslaughter and murder, but not murder itself.

The Appellant appealed the sentence as manifestly excessive, citing her complicated emotional and obstetric background and remorse, supported by psychiatric and psychological reports.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the length of the sentence imposed for administering poison with intent to procure a miscarriage close to full term was manifestly excessive.
2. The appropriate starting point for sentencing in cases involving unlawful termination near or at full term, considering the absence of direct statutory guidance or established jurisprudence.
3. The relevance and weight to be given to the Appellant’s obstetric history, emotional state, remorse, and psychiatric assessments in determining sentence severity.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentencing judge erred by treating the offence as akin to homicide worse than manslaughter and close to murder, describing the Appellant as "cold and calculating."
• Insufficient weight was given to the Appellant’s complicated obstetric history and emotional state as detailed in expert psychiatric and psychological reports.
• The judge declined to adjourn for the preparation of a psychologist’s report, which was prepared post-sentence and indicated entrenched maladaptive coping mechanisms and emotional detachment but also remorse and motivation to maintain the family unit.
• The judge failed to give adequate weight to the only cited authority, R v Mohammed (unreported), which was said to be the only potentially helpful sentencing precedent.
• The Appellant was remorseful and emotionally affected by her history and actions, which should have mitigated the sentence.

Crown's Arguments

• The Crown relied on the seriousness of the offence, emphasizing the deliberate termination close to birth and the absence of remorse or meaningful mitigation.
• Reference was made to R v Magira [2008] EWCA Crim 1939, a case involving coercion to terminate pregnancy, as some assistance in principle for sentencing, although facts were not directly comparable.
• The Appellant was treated as a rational individual who acted deliberately for reasons not adequately explained.
• The aggravating factors included full-term termination, concealment of the body, planning and acquisition of abortifacient drugs, and previous experience with pregnancy and termination consequences.
• Mitigation included the guilty plea, expert opinions on remorse and emotional attachment, and the Appellant’s role as a good mother to her two young children.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the highly unusual facts and the absence of direct statutory or jurisprudential guidance for sentencing in such cases. It emphasized that the offence involved the deliberate ending of a life at or near full term, engaging serious culpability and harm considerations.

The sentencing judge’s approach was to treat the offence as more serious than manslaughter but not murder, reflecting the deliberate nature and timing of the termination, the concealment, and the deceit involved. The judge’s starting point of 12 years, reduced to 8 years after credit for the guilty plea, was deemed manifestly excessive by the appellate court.

The court considered the Appellant’s obstetric and emotional history, psychiatric and psychological reports indicating maladaptive coping and emotional detachment but also remorse and motivation to maintain family unity. It recognized the complexity of remorse in this context and the Appellant’s disinclination to disclose the body’s location, which was viewed as complicated rather than purely obstructive.

The court balanced aggravating factors—full-term termination, concealment, planning, and experience—with mitigating factors—early guilty plea, expert opinions on remorse and emotional difficulties, and the Appellant’s role as a good mother to young children.

Ultimately, the court concluded that a starting point of approximately five years was appropriate, and applying the plea credit, a sentence of three and a half years was the just outcome.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED THE APPEAL IN PART by reducing the sentence from eight years to three and a half years' imprisonment.

The decision directly affects the Appellant by substantially reducing the custodial sentence imposed. No new legal precedent was established, but the ruling provides guidance on sentencing in rare and complex cases involving unlawful termination near full term, emphasizing the need to carefully balance culpability, harm, and mitigation in the absence of clear statutory direction.