Steele, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

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

The offending arose from the Appellant's abusive and volatile relationship with a young woman, referred to as the Victim 1, and involved a targeted attack on her family home, including her brother (Victim 2) and grandmother (Victim 3). On 4 June 2019, the Appellant and JJ forcibly entered the residence, assaulting Victim 2 with punches and Victim 3 with a machete wielded by JJ. Victim 3 suffered serious injuries including a deep machete wound, fractured wrist, nerve damage requiring surgery, and lasting sensory loss. Victim 2 sustained head injuries and abrasions.

Police apprehended the Appellant and JJ shortly after the incident, recovering the weapon with forensic evidence linking both men to it. The Appellant admitted assaulting Victim 2 but denied possession of the machete. He had a prior conviction for possession of a class B drug.

Following the offence, the Appellant underwent psychiatric assessment and treatment. Reports from three forensic psychiatrists diagnosed him with a chronic personality disorder, alcohol dependency syndrome, and a high risk of developing paranoid schizophrenia. He was found capable of forming the intent to cause grievous bodily harm at the time of the offence. The sentencing judge considered these reports but did not find grounds for a hospital order under section 45A of the Mental Health Act 1983.

The judge sentenced the Appellant based on a starting point of 10 years' custody for a Category 1 offence, adjusted for age and credit for guilty plea to six years and eight months. The judge identified aggravating features including planning, concealment of identity, night-time attack, involvement of alcohol or drugs, and serious impact on the victims.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to adequately consider the Appellant's mental health issues, including personality disorder and alcohol dependency, in assessing culpability and mitigation.
2. Whether the starting point of 10 years' custody was manifestly excessive given the Appellant's mental health and other mitigating factors.
3. Whether the sentencing judge improperly engaged in double-counting aggravating factors such as planning and concealment of identity.
4. Whether the disparity between the Appellant's sentence and that of JJ was unjustified.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly because the Appellant's serious mental health problems were not properly accounted for in assessing culpability or mitigation.
• The starting point of 10 years was too high and failed to reflect the impact of the Appellant’s personality disorder and alcohol dependency on his impulsivity and emotional control.
• The judge improperly double-counted aggravating factors such as planning and concealment of identity.
• The sentencing judge failed to sufficiently distinguish between the Appellant's and JJ's respective culpability and roles, resulting in an insufficient disparity in sentences given JJ’s more serious conduct.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court affirmed that the offending involved significant harm, including serious physical injury and psychological trauma, justifying a high culpability categorisation. The presence of a weapon known to the Appellant and joint participation in the attack supported this assessment. The court acknowledged some planning and deliberate targeting motivated by a grudge, which properly factored into the sentencing exercise either as aggravating features or indicators of higher culpability.

Regarding the Appellant's mental health, the court noted that while the psychiatric evidence demonstrated a link between the Appellant’s personality disorder and impulsivity, it did not establish a degree of impairment sufficient to reduce culpability below the higher category. The Appellant was not psychotic at the time and was capable of forming intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The court found the sentencing judge’s refusal to reduce the starting point on mental health grounds was justifiable.

However, the court identified that the sentencing judge failed to give adequate weight to the Appellant's mental health conditions, alcohol dependency, age, and prior good character when fixing the final sentence. The starting point of 10 years before credit for plea was deemed manifestly excessive in light of these mitigating factors. The court concluded a reduction to an eight-year starting point was appropriate, resulting in a final sentence of five years and four months' imprisonment after credit for guilty plea.

The court rejected the argument that the sentence disparity between the Appellant and JJ was unjustified, noting the differences in their roles, age, and offending history, and that the Appellant intended the machete to be used despite not wielding it himself.

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 original sentence, including the restraining order, remain unchanged.

The decision directly affects the Appellant by reducing his custodial term, reflecting a more balanced consideration of his mental health and mitigating circumstances. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the ruling applied established sentencing principles regarding mental health and culpability.