Summary of Court of Appeal Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal against sentence brought to the Court of Appeal by way of a reference from The Commission. The Appellant was sentenced on 4 November 2022 in the Crown Court by Judge Mooney for seven counts of cruelty to a person under 16, contrary to section 1(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Each count related to a different child of the Appellant; the household included eight children but one child was over 16 and not the subject of the indictment. There was a Co-Defendant who was the natural father of some of the children. Both defendants received concurrent custodial sentences of six years on each count.

The sentencing followed a guilty plea entered by the Appellant in March 2022 on a Basis of Plea; the prosecution did not accept aspects of that plea but neither party requested a Newton hearing. The convictions and sentences were the product of a Crown Court sentencing exercise that categorised the offences as 1A (most serious harm) and assessed culpability as category A.

Procedurally, the Appellant's application for leave to appeal was dismissed by a single judge on 17 February 2023. The Appellant then applied to The Commission in March 2023, which made a reference to this Court based principally on new post-sentence medical/psychiatric evidence. This Court heard oral submissions and considered the new medical reports in determining whether the new material amounted to a proper basis to allow the appeal against sentence.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the post-sentence medical and psychiatric evidence (new evidence) is capable of belief, admissible and sufficiently connected to the offending so as to afford a real prospect that the Court of Appeal would conclude the sentence was manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the requirements for receiving fresh evidence under section 23(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (as summarised in the opinion) are satisfied.
3. Whether, applying the Sentencing Council guideline on offenders with mental disorders (and section 59(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020), any diagnosed conditions provide a sufficient link to reduce culpability and so justify a reduction in the sentence.
4. Whether the reference from The Commission meets the statutory threshold under section 13 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 (i.e. that there is a real possibility the sentence would not be upheld) based upon new evidence not previously before the sentencing judge.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant relied on post-sentence medical and psychiatric assessments said to show neurodiversity, ADHD, anxiety-related conditions and a mild to moderate personality disorder. The Appellant's case before this Court concentrated on the opinion of Doctor Halsey that, taken together with other features (such as anxiety and low self-esteem), these conditions would have impacted her ability to think rationally and exercise appropriate judgment and therefore bore on culpability.
• The Appellant accepted that almost all other relevant features of her circumstances had been before the sentencing judge, and that the diagnoses themselves were the primary new material. Attorney Oliveira-Agnew confined the reference to the narrow question of whether Doctor Halsey's new evidence warranted allowing the appeal against sentence.

Respondent's / Prosecution's Arguments

• The prosecution advanced a Respondent's Notice and made oral submissions contesting that the new evidence established any sufficient connection between the Appellant's diagnosed conditions and the offending so as to render the sentence manifestly excessive.
• The prosecution maintained that the sentencing judge had been informed about the Appellant's anxiety and other relevant background material, that the judge properly applied the sentencing guideline categories (harm 1, culpability A), and that the scale and duration of the neglect were such that the existing sentence was justified.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded in a structured way:

1. Reporting Restrictions: The Court noted section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 applied, prohibiting publication of information identifying the under-18 victims; it reaffirmed the Crown Court reporting restrictions (which do not apply to the Appellant or the Co-Defendant).
2. Summary of Sentencing Facts: The Court reviewed the factual findings relied on by the sentencing judge — extreme squalor in The Property, presence of many dogs including a dead animal, children malnourished and in extremely poor hygienic and dental condition, withdrawal of children from The School, and a prolonged offending period from September 2019 to June 2021. The judge had treated the offences as category 1A (most serious harm) and category A culpability.
3. CCRC Reference and Statutory Thresholds: The Court described the statutory framework under section 13 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 (The Commission must consider there is a real possibility the conviction or sentence would not be upheld, and normally this must be on the basis of argument or evidence not raised previously). The Court restated the criteria for admitting new evidence per section 23(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968: the evidence must be capable of belief, may afford ground for allowing the appeal, would have been admissible at the original proceedings, and there must be a reasonable explanation for its earlier absence.
4. Assessment of New Medical Evidence: The Court accepted that Doctor Halsey's report constituted new evidence not before the sentencing judge and that the statutory admissibility criteria (capable of belief, not previously available, reasonable explanation) were met for receipt of that evidence.
5. Application of Sentencing Guideline on Mental Disorder: The Court noted the Sentencing Council's guideline (and section 59(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020) requires consideration of disorders but does not guarantee any sentence reduction. The Court observed that at the time of sentencing the judge was told about the Appellant's anxiety and that being on a waiting list for an ASD assessment had been disclosed. Doctor Halsey's opinion in fact did not diagnose ASD, ADHD or PTSD, but identified health-related anxiety (hypochondriasis) and a mild to moderate personality disorder. Doctor Halsey considered the connection between these features and the offending to be complex and not straightforward; he did not assert a strong causal link.
6. Evaluation of Causal Connection and Proportionality: The Court examined the length and nature of the neglect (a prolonged period of over 20 months, plans to avoid detection such as keeping dogs out of sight for social services visits, withdrawal of children from The School) and concluded these facts indicated planning or manipulation and a very high level of culpability. Given these facts, the Court found the asserted link between the Appellant's diagnosed conditions and the neglect was tenuous. The Court considered it unlikely that a person functioning successfully in other parts of life (running a business, owning a home) with only a mild to moderate personality disorder could account for the severity of the neglect.
7. Conclusion on Manifest Excess: The Court held that to succeed, the Appellant needed to show the sentence was manifestly excessive. While Doctor Halsey's evidence was new and believable, it did not demonstrate a sufficient connection between the disorders and the offending to found a good ground of appeal that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED. The Court dismissed the Appellant's appeal against sentence.

Implications and direct effects:

• The sentence of six years' imprisonment imposed by the Crown Court remains in force and is not reduced.
• The reporting restrictions imposed under section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 in respect of the under-18 victims are reaffirmed by this Court.
• The Court found that the new medical evidence obtained post-sentence did not establish a sufficient causal link with the offending to amount to a ground for concluding the sentence was manifestly excessive. The opinion does not indicate that it establishes a new legal precedent; the decision is confined to the facts and evidence of this case.

This summary has been prepared from the text of the provided opinion and contains only information expressly contained therein.