Holland, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 5 April 2024 the Appellant pleaded guilty at The Court to attempted robbery and possession of an article with a blade or point (a kitchen knife). On 28 November 2024 Judge Moreland sentenced the Appellant to an extended determinate sentence of eight years under section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020 (custodial term four years plus an extended licence period of four years) for attempted robbery, with a concurrent term of 15 months for possession of the knife.

The factual basis was that on 1 March 2024 the manager of Company A (a convenience store) reported the Appellant had threatened staff with a carving-type knife, waving it and demanding money from the till. The Appellant threatened staff for approximately five to six minutes, then sat down and remained until police arrived; she admitted the offences in interview and reported hearing voices and a history of mental health treatment. She was held on remand from the date of arrest.

The Appellant is 32 years old and has two relevant prior immediate custodial sentences (an eight-week sentence in 2021 for assault occasioning actual bodily harm and a 14-month sentence in 2022 for affray and assault on an emergency worker). Psychiatric reports and other reports before the sentencing judge recorded longstanding and serious mental health problems, including likely paranoid schizophrenia, with one psychiatrist (Doctor Vandenabeele) concluding the Appellant was suffering a psychotic illness at the material time and that this likely reduced culpability. A later psychiatrist (Doctor Gupta) assessed the Appellant while she was in custody and recorded significant improvement on medication. A practitioner from the prison and MAPPA team (Practitioner Craven) and an addendum pre-sentence report by Author Sugden also described substantial mental health needs and the importance of suitable residential support; a specialist placement was briefly available but was lost before sentence, and the Appellant declined further adjournment.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to apply the Sentencing Council Guideline on Sentencing Offenders with Mental Disorders, Developmental Disorders or Neurological Impairments ("the Impairment Guideline") to assess whether the Appellant's culpability was reduced by reason of her mental impairment.
2. If culpability was reduced, whether an extended sentence under section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020 was nevertheless appropriate.
3. Whether the Appellant's admissions in interview should have been treated as a mitigating factor.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Attorney Scott submitted the Appellant's culpability was reduced due to paranoid schizophrenia and the judge should have applied the Impairment Guideline to assess sufficiency and extent of any reduction (ground 1).
• Attorney Scott submitted that if the appropriate reduction had been applied the sentence would not have qualified for extension under the extended sentence regime (ground 2).
• Attorney Scott submitted the Appellant's admissions in interview should have been considered as mitigation (ground 3).

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of any submissions made by the prosecution in opposition.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The appellate court analysed whether the sentencing judge had erred by not applying the Impairment Guideline to assess culpability separately from mitigation. The court noted Doctor Vandenabeele's opinion that the Appellant was in an acute psychotic episode at the material time and that this would likely have reduced culpability, and found that the pre-sentence report and Practitioner Craven's letter provided broadly consistent evidence of substantial mental health issues relevant to the offending.

The court concluded the sentencing judge erred as a matter of principle by failing to consider, under the Impairment Guideline, whether there was a sufficient connection between the impairment and the offending and the extent of any reduction in culpability. Having found such a sufficient connection, the court applied the Guideline to re-categorise culpability.

The court determined that, although a Category A feature (bringing a knife) was present, the mental impairment justified moving the Appellant to Culpability Category B (balancing features of A and C). Taking Category B2 as the appropriate starting point (four years, range three to six years), the court then assessed aggravating and mitigating factors: significant aggravation from recent relevant convictions and a just-expired licence period; exclusion of two aggravating factors originally relied on by the judge because they were either already accounted for in culpability or contrary to the evidence; mitigation for the offence being an attempt and for admissions in interview (given slight weight); and not double-counting the mental illness after having applied it to culpability.

The court reached a notional sentence after trial of four years and six months (54 months). Applying the 25% reduction for guilty plea (unchallenged), the court arrived at a determinate sentence of 40 months. Because that custodial term is under four years, the court found no basis for an extended sentence under section 280 of the Sentencing Act 2020. The court also took account of the Appellant's ongoing psychiatric needs and the fact she had been sectioned and was to be transferred for in-patient psychiatric treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED IN PART

Holding: The court quashed the extended determinate sentence of eight years (four years custody plus four years extension) imposed by Judge Moreland and substituted a determinate sentence of 40 months' custody. The concurrent 15-month sentence for possession of a bladed article was left unaltered.

Implications: The direct effect is that the Appellant's extended sentence was removed and replaced with a determinate custodial term of 40 months; accordingly, the statutory extended-licence regime no longer applies to this offence. The court emphasised that the Appellant's risks will be managed through Mental Health Act processes (she had been sectioned and was to be transferred to psychiatric in-patient care). The opinion corrects an error of principle in sentencing practice by reaffirming the need to apply the Impairment Guideline to assess reduced culpability where there is evidence of a sufficient connection between impairment and offending. The court did not purport to establish a new precedent beyond applying the existing guideline framework to the facts of this case.