Summary of Court Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

On 18 July 2025, at The Crown Court, the Appellant (aged 19 at sentence) was sentenced by Judge Enright for multiple offences arising from two separate incidents. For two offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm the Appellant received 24 weeks' detention in a young offender institution for each offence (to be served concurrently). No separate penalty was imposed in respect of five offences of assault on emergency workers or in respect of an earlier incident involving offences described as grievous bodily harm and affray.

The Appellant appeals against sentence with the leave of a single judge.

The principal factual events leading to the sentencing were described as follows. On a date in August 2024 police were called to an address in The City where the Appellant had shut herself in an upstairs bathroom and was refusing to leave. Police ultimately gained access. The Appellant smashed her head on shower glass and headbutted a door frame and the floor. She resisted officers, attempted self-harm, and bit her mother (the first count of assault). She kicked and headbutted police officers and headbutted the walls of a police van. The following day at the police station she grabbed officers, had to be restrained, and bit the arm of a police officer (the second offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm). The kicks and grabbing of officers were charged as assaults on emergency workers.

A separate earlier incident, about eight months before, involved a group attack on two or three males; the Appellant joined by kicking one victim who was unconscious. No separate penalty was imposed for those offences at sentence.

Background material included a pre-sentence report, a psychiatric report, and a psychologist's report. The pre-sentence report described violent and aggressive behaviour towards emergency workers and assessed that the Appellant's motivation included a negative attitude to police and a perception of acting in self-defence. The pre-sentence author assessed impulsivity, immaturity and difficulties with anger management and temper control, and proposed a 24 month suspended sentence with requirements including 40 days of rehabilitation activity and an unpaid work requirement.

The psychiatric report recorded a history of childhood trauma and care, a diagnosis of a mental and behavioural disorder with symptoms of emotional dysregulation, impulsivity and emerging emotionally unstable personality traits. The psychiatrist concluded the Appellant would benefit from structured psychological and other interventions, potentially available in custody or via community health services.

An updated report from the young offender institution (available to the appellate court but not to the sentencing judge) indicated no provision of mental health support in custody, no adjudications or behaviour warnings, compliance with the regime and work on the wing. The sentencing judge had focused on the two assaults occasioning actual bodily harm and characterised each offence as culpability B and harm level 2 under the Sentencing Council guidelines.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge failed properly to take into account the Appellant's personal mitigation (including youth, immaturity, deprived background and mental health difficulties) when determining the appropriate sentence.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in concluding that immediate custody was the only appropriate punishment and therefore in refusing to suspend the sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentencing judge did not properly account for the Appellant's mitigating personal features: her immaturity, lack of recent offending, deprived background and mental health difficulties, as evidenced in the liaison and diversion report and the pre-sentence report.
• The judge failed to take those mitigation features into account when deciding not to suspend the sentence. Given the judge's acceptance of a realistic prospect of rehabilitation and the Appellant's mitigation, immediate custody could not be justified as the only appropriate punishment.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of any submissions advanced for the respondent/prosecution on these specific grounds.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The appellate court (Judge Lewis delivering the opinion) reviewed the sentencing judge's approach to the offences and the mitigating material. The sentencing judge had:

• Characterised each of the two offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm as culpability B and harm level 2 under the Sentencing Council guidelines, a characterization accepted by the Appellant's counsel at first instance.
• Adopted a starting point of 36 weeks' custody (range: high level community order to 1½ years custody), considered being on police bail as an aggravating factor (adjusting to 40 weeks), then allowed mitigation for youth and background to return to 36 weeks, and then applied a one-third reduction for an early guilty plea to reach 24 weeks' custody for each offence to be served concurrently.
• Considered but declined to suspend the sentence, concluding that "conduct of this kind must result in custody" and that "the only appropriate punishment can be achieved by custody", while acknowledging concerns about maturity, background and prospects of rehabilitation.

The appellate court analysed the matter against the relevant Sentencing Council guidelines, including the guideline on offenders with mental disorders, developmental disorders or neurological impairments and the guideline on the imposition of community and custodial sentences.

Key elements of the court's reasoning were:

1. The guidelines require an assessment of culpability and then consideration whether a disorder reduces culpability. The appellate court found the sentencing judge had not adequately factored in the psychiatric evidence that the Appellant's mental health difficulties reduced her culpability at the time of the offences.
2. The guideline on suspension identifies factors where suspension is inappropriate (risk to the public, that appropriate punishment can only be achieved in custody, history of poor compliance). The appellate court noted there was no assessment of risk, no history of non-compliance with court orders, and therefore those specific bars to suspension did not clearly apply in this case.
3. The guideline also lists factors tending to support suspension: a realistic prospect of rehabilitation and strong personal mitigation. The sentencing judge had accepted that rehabilitation was realistic but did not properly weight the strong personal mitigation (youth, mental health and traumatic background) alongside that acceptance.
4. The appellate court emphasised three particular points which, in combination, weighed in favour of suspension: (a) reduced culpability due to the Appellant's mental health conditions, (b) a limited previous record (a single previous conviction which had not resulted in custodial penalty), and (c) the context of the assaults (impulsive reactions in the course of refusing to leave the home and efforts to prevent removal by police), rather than premeditated attacks in other contexts.
5. Having weighed these matters, the appellate court concluded the sentencing judge was not correct to state that appropriate punishment could only be achieved by immediate custody; the judge had not sufficiently considered the mitigating factors and the prospect of effective community-based rehabilitation.

The appellate court also considered the updated report from the young offender institution (not available to the sentencing judge), which indicated that the Appellant had not received mental health support in custody but had complied with the regime and shown no behavioural concerns; the court bore this in mind when assessing what further punishment or requirements would be appropriate.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED IN PART; SENTENCE SUSPENDED

Holding (direct effect on the parties):

• The appellate court held that the sentencing judge erred in imposing immediate detention. The two concurrent terms of 24 weeks' detention should have been suspended for 24 months.
• The court declined to impose an unpaid work requirement, noting the Appellant had already served three weeks in custody and had therefore experienced a degree of punishment.
• The court imposed a requirement that the Appellant complete 40 days of rehabilitation activity as part of the suspended sentence order.
• Accordingly, the appeal was allowed to the extent described above.

Implications:

• The immediate practical consequence is that the Appellant's custodial sentence of 24 weeks (per offence) was suspended for 24 months and replaced by community-focused requirements including 40 days of rehabilitation activity, with no unpaid work requirement imposed given time already served.
• The court's decision reflects application of Sentencing Council guidance on offenders with mental disorders and on suspension of sentences, stressing appropriate consideration of reduced culpability where mental health factors are present and the interaction between prospects of rehabilitation and personal mitigation.
• The opinion does not purport to establish a new legal precedent beyond the application of existing guidelines to the facts; the decision is driven by the appellate court's view that, on these facts, immediate custody was not the only appropriate sentence.

Note on anonymization: All personal names and location identifiers in this summary have been replaced with generic placeholders consistent with the source opinion and the anonymization rules provided.