Sines, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant pleaded guilty on 11 August 2022 before Magistrates to assaulting an emergency worker ("the index offence"). The offence occurred during the operational period of two suspended sentence orders ("SSOs"). Previously, on 16 July 2021, the Appellant had been sentenced for multiple offences including criminal damage, affray, assault of an emergency worker, and threatening behaviour. These sentences were amended in the Crown Court in April 2022, resulting in two SSOs: the first was 18 weeks' imprisonment suspended for 2 years, and the second was 18 months' imprisonment suspended for 2 years.

On 25 October 2022, the Crown Court sentenced the Appellant to 4 weeks' imprisonment for the index offence and activated both SSOs with reduced custodial terms of 1 month and 14 months respectively, all to run consecutively. The total effective sentence was 15 months and 4 weeks' imprisonment.

The index offence involved the Appellant approaching police officers in an aggressive and intoxicated state, throwing cider over one officer, and threatening to use a glass bottle as a weapon. The Appellant was subsequently tasered, arrested, and detained. At the police station, he provided a prepared statement referencing his mental health issues and apologised for his conduct.

During sentencing, the court considered psychiatric reports detailing the Appellant's longstanding mental health conditions, including Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder, ADHD, depression, and alcohol addiction. The Appellant had multiple hospital admissions related to self-harm and suicide attempts. The sentencing judge classified the offence as high culpability with moderate harm, justifying a custodial sentence outside the normal guideline range due to aggravating factors such as previous assaults on emergency workers and alcohol use.

The defence sought to adjourn sentencing for an updated psychiatric report, citing a recent serious decline in the Appellant’s mental health and hospitalisation under the Mental Health Act 1983. The judge refused the adjournment, finding the existing report sufficient and that custody was the only appropriate option.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in refusing to adjourn sentencing to obtain an updated psychiatric report as required by section 232 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
2. Whether the custodial sentence imposed for the index offence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, particularly in light of the Appellant’s mental health and prior convictions.
3. Whether the decision to activate the two suspended sentence orders was justified and proportionate.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentencing judge wrongly refused to adjourn sentencing to obtain a current psychiatric report, contrary to the statutory requirement under section 232 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
• The custodial sentence was manifestly excessive, as the judge placed undue weight on previous convictions for assaulting emergency workers and the Appellant’s voluntary intoxication.
• The judge failed to sufficiently consider the mitigating effect of the Appellant’s psychiatric disorders on culpability.
• The sentence for the index offence unduly influenced the activation of the suspended sentence orders.
• The judge failed to properly address the Appellant’s non-compliance with curfew requirements under the SSOs, specifically interference with electronic tagging.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court considered an updated psychiatric report obtained for the appeal, which confirmed the Appellant’s mental health remained seriously unsettled for many months following the initial report. Despite this, the court agreed with the sentencing judge that the longstanding nature of the Appellant’s psychiatric conditions meant the March 2022 report was sufficient for sentencing purposes. The judge was entitled to refuse the adjournment application because no genuinely new circumstances were presented that would justify further delay or a different approach.

The court found no merit in the argument that the judge failed to address the Appellant’s breach of curfew conditions under the SSOs, concluding that this did not indicate additional vulnerability requiring special consideration.

The judge was justified in treating the Appellant’s previous convictions for assaulting emergency workers as serious aggravating factors, as well as his deliberate consumption of alcohol before the index offence. Balancing these against the mitigating factors, including mental health difficulties, the judge reasonably concluded a custodial sentence was appropriate and not excessive.

Regarding the activation of the SSOs, the court noted the original offences underlying these orders were serious, involving violence and intimidation. The sentencing judge correctly applied the Overarching Guideline on Breach of a Suspended Sentence Order, recognizing that only new and exceptional factors not present at the original sentencing could render activation unjust. Given the Appellant’s longstanding psychiatric problems were already known, no new factors justified non-activation. The reductions in sentence terms were proportionate and reflected compliance levels.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is DISMISSED.

The court upheld the custodial sentence imposed for the index offence and the activation of the two suspended sentence orders. The refusal to adjourn sentencing for an updated psychiatric report was found to be lawful and reasonable. The decision confirms that longstanding mental health issues, when previously known and considered, do not necessarily mandate fresh reports or adjournments absent new developments. The ruling does not establish new precedent but affirms the application of existing sentencing principles and guidelines in cases involving mental health and breaches of SSOs.