Steele, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns a sentence imposed on the Appellant, aged 22, who pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary contrary to section 10(1) of the Theft Act 1968. The Appellant was sentenced to six years and eight months' imprisonment by Judge Wall QC at Birmingham Crown Court on 21 November 2019 and was also made subject to a restraining order. The Appellant's co-accused, referred to as "JJ," aged 21, pleaded guilty to the same offence and received a sentence of seven years and four months' detention in a Young Offender Institution.

The offending arose from the Appellant's abusive and troubled relationship with a young woman, referred to as the Victim 1, and involved a targeted attack on her family home. The Appellant and JJ forcibly entered the Victim 1’s home in the early hours of 4 June 2019, where they assaulted her brother (Victim 2) and grandmother (Victim 3) using physical violence and a machete. Victim 3 suffered serious injury, including a stab wound requiring surgery and long-term nerve damage. The Appellant admitted assaulting Victim 2 but denied possession of the machete. Both men were apprehended shortly after the incident, with forensic evidence linking them to the weapon.

Following the incident, the Appellant underwent psychiatric assessment revealing a history of psychotic illness, personality disorder, and alcohol dependency. Despite initial concerns about fitness to plead, the Appellant was found fit after treatment and was sentenced taking into account psychiatric evidence, although no order under section 45A of the Mental Health Act 1983 was made.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence imposed on the Appellant was manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the Appellant’s mental health issues, including personality disorder and alcohol dependency, were properly considered in assessing culpability and mitigation.
3. Whether the sentencing judge erred by double-counting aggravating factors such as planning, concealment of identity, and deliberate targeting.
4. Whether the sentencing judge failed to adequately distinguish between the Appellant’s culpability and that of his co-accused, JJ.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentence was manifestly excessive given the Appellant’s serious mental health problems, which were not sufficiently taken into account in reduction of culpability or mitigation.
• The starting point of 10 years’ custody was too high, especially as the Appellant’s mental disorder affected his impulsivity and emotional management during a stressful period.
• The sentencing judge improperly double-counted aggravating factors such as planning and concealment of identity.
• The judge failed to give adequate weight to mitigation arising from the Appellant’s mental health and his difficulty coping in custody.
• The one-year difference in sentences between the Appellant and JJ did not sufficiently reflect the lesser harm caused by the Appellant compared to JJ.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court found no basis to disturb the judge’s conclusion that the offending involved serious harm, including persistent violence and the use of a weapon, with victims at home, justifying a categorization of higher culpability. The court acknowledged some degree of planning and deliberate targeting motivated by a grudge, which warranted aggravating weight in sentencing.

Regarding the Appellant’s mental health, the court noted the psychiatric evidence showed a link between the Appellant’s personality disorder and the offending, particularly impulsivity and emotional instability, but no psychosis at the time of the offence. The Appellant was capable of forming intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The court accepted that the judge did not give sufficient weight to the Appellant’s mental health in mitigation and that the starting point of 10 years’ custody before credit for plea was manifestly excessive when considering the Appellant’s mental disorder, alcohol dependency, age, and previous good character.

The court concluded that a reduced starting point of eight years before credit for plea was appropriate, resulting in a substituted sentence of five years and four months' imprisonment. The court rejected the argument that the sentence disparity between the Appellant and JJ was unjustified, finding the judge had properly considered their differing roles and culpabilities.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is ALLOWED. The court quashed the original sentence of six years and eight months' imprisonment and substituted a sentence of five years and four months' imprisonment. All other elements of the sentence, including the restraining order, remain unchanged.

The decision directly affects the Appellant by reducing the custodial term to better reflect his mental health mitigation and individual circumstances. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing sentencing principles regarding mental health and culpability.