Bennis, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence following refusal by a single judge. The applicant pleaded guilty on 16 January 2023 in the Central Criminal Court to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility of her mother, which occurred on 15 August 2022. At the time of the offence, the applicant was 21 years old and the deceased was 58. On 18 January 2024, the applicant was sentenced to an extended determinate sentence comprising a custodial term of nine years and an extended licence period of five years pursuant to section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

The offence occurred against a complex background, including a history of physical and emotional abuse between the applicant and her mother. The applicant suffered from undiagnosed mental disorders, specifically complex post-traumatic stress disorder (CPTSD) and alcohol use disorder, along with evidence of drug misuse.

On the day of the offence, the applicant and the deceased exchanged abusive text messages and both had been drinking. The applicant went alone to the deceased’s home seeking assistance with childcare arrangements. An emergency call was made following screams and disturbances at the deceased’s flat. Police found the deceased severely injured with multiple stab wounds and the applicant nearby, also injured. The deceased died from stab wounds causing fatal haemorrhage.

The applicant told police she stabbed her mother in self-defence after the mother attacked her with a knife and glass. Psychiatric evidence confirmed substantial impairment of the applicant’s ability to exercise self-control due to CPTSD, though her ability to make rational judgment was only limitedly impaired. The applicant had a chaotic lifestyle prior to the offence, including previous convictions and non-compliance with rehabilitation requirements.

The sentencing judge carefully considered the facts, expert evidence, aggravating factors including the use of a weapon and the sustained nature of the attack, and mitigating factors such as lack of premeditation, youth, troubled upbringing, and remorse. The judge concluded the applicant was dangerous but did not warrant a life sentence, resulting in the imposed sentence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in the assessment of the applicant’s level of retained responsibility in light of her CPTSD and alcohol use disorder.
2. Whether the sentence imposed adequately reflected the applicant’s personal mitigation and the background circumstances, including the history of abuse.
3. Whether the judge was correct to treat the sustained nature of the attack and use of a weapon as aggravating factors.
4. Whether the length of the extended licence period was excessive or properly justified.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The applicant’s defence counsel submitted that the sentence did not adequately reflect the horrific background of lifelong abuse suffered by the applicant at the hands of the deceased.
• It was argued that insufficient weight was given to the applicant’s personal mitigation and the high degree of provocation from the deceased.
• The sentencing judge should have referred to the Sentencing Council Guideline for Manslaughter by reason of Loss of Control by way of calibration.
• The judge erred in categorising the level of retained responsibility as medium rather than low, given the applicant was unaware of her CPTSD and had not refused treatment.
• The previous conviction from 2021 should not have been considered relevant to residual culpability.
• The extended licence period of five years was excessive.
• It was suggested the custodial term should be materially less than nine years to reflect the background circumstances and mitigation.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the prosecution’s legal arguments beyond acknowledgment of their written submissions.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court found no error of principle by the sentencing judge, who had applied the relevant legislative framework and Sentencing Council Guidelines correctly. The judge’s assessment of the applicant’s retained responsibility as medium was supported by the evidence, including the undiagnosed CPTSD, exacerbation by alcohol, the applicant’s anger, poor choices, and prior violent conduct. The court rejected the suggestion that the level of retained responsibility should be lower.

The judge was entitled to treat the sustained nature of the attack and use of a weapon as aggravating factors, as these were relevant to the seriousness of the offence. The court emphasised that mitigation related to CPTSD did not render these factors irrelevant but required a balanced evaluation, which the judge conducted.

The court also found no merit in the argument that the Sentencing Council Guideline for loss of control should have been applied by way of calibration, as the applicant pleaded guilty on the basis of diminished responsibility and the appropriate guideline was used.

Regarding the extended licence period, the court held that the judge properly assessed the ongoing risk posed by the applicant and the necessity of the five-year licence period for public protection, noting uncertainty as to whether the applicant would reduce her risk level.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence.

The direct effect is that the applicant’s sentence of nine years custody with an extended licence period of five years stands as imposed. No new precedent was established by this decision. The court reaffirmed the sentencing judge’s careful and balanced approach in weighing aggravating and mitigating factors within the legislative and guideline framework.