The court considered issues arising from the sentencing of mentally ill offenders to indeterminate terms of imprisonment.
As to the release provisions relating to those subject to an order under ss 37/41 and those made subject to a s 45A order, Hallett LJ said: ‘A level of misunderstanding of the guidance offered in Vowles appears to have arisen as to the order in which a sentencing judge should approach the making of a s.37 or a s.45A order and the precedence allegedly given in Vowles to a s.45A order. In our view, section 45A could have been better drafted but the position is clear. Section 45A and the judgment in Vowles do not provide a ‘default’ setting of imprisonment, as some have assumed. The sentencing judge should first consider if a hospital order may be appropriate under section 37 (2) (a). If so, before making such an order, the court must consider all the powers at its disposal including a s.45A order. Consideration of a s.45A order must come before the making [of] a hospital order. This is because a disposal under section 45A includes a penal element, and the court must have ‘sound reasons’ for departing from the usual course of imposing a sentence with a penal element. Sound reasons may include the nature of the offence and the limited nature of any penal element (if imposed) and the fact that the offending was very substantially (albeit not wholly) attributable to the offender’s illness. However, the graver the offence and the greater the risk to the public on release of the offender, the greater the emphasis the judge must place upon the protection of the public and the release regime.’
and ‘It follows that, as important as the offender’s personal circumstances may be, rehabilitation of offenders is but one of the purposes of sentencing. The punishment of offenders and the protection of the public are also at the heart of the sentencing process. In assessing the seriousness of the offence, s. 143 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act provides that the court must consider the offender’s culpability in committing the offence and any harm caused, intended or foreseeable.’
Judges:
Hallett DBE VP CACD, Treacy LJJ, Sir Wyn Williams
Citations:
[2018] EWCA Crim 595, [2018] WLR(D) 199, [2018] 4 WLR 64, [2018] MHLR 105
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Vowles and Others, Regina v CACD 5-Feb-2015
The court considered appeals by prisoners subject to indeterminate sentences (either imprisonment for public protection (IPP) or a life sentence) passed between 1997 and 2008, where there had been medical evidence before the court suggesting the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Lall, Regina v CACD 19-Mar-2021
Choice of mental Health Sentencing Options
On conviction of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility, the judge imposed a hospital order and a restriction, without limit of time, under sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The AG appealed it as too lenient, suggesting . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing, Health
Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.608695