England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice The Strand London WC2A 2LL
		9 October 2007

LORD JUSTICE PILL: I will ask Mr Justice Hedley to give the judgment of the court.

MR JUSTICE HEDLEY:

1. This is a renewed application following refusal by the single judge for leave to appeal against a sentence of imprisonment for public protection with a minimum term of four years (less time spent on remand), imposed on 13 April 2007 by His Honour Judge Faulks sitting in the Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne. On 23 March 2007 the applicant had pleaded guilty to an offence of wounding with intent against his wife. At that time he was a man of previous good character.
2. The background was that the parties had married in 2003. They had had a somewhat transitory relationship. It was the first relationship that the applicant had had, but by 2006 it appeared to have foundered. The wife indicated that she had a new relationship and divorce proceedings were on foot. On 16 October 2006 the applicant had visited the wife's house. She remarked that he had been talking strangely and had been talking of his own death. The following night the applicant entered his wife's house. It was ultimately accepted that that was with the consent of the wife. An argument followed which led to a sustained and vicious attack by the applicant on his wife -- an attack which was continued even after the arrival of her new boyfriend, who endeavoured to prevent continuing violence. The applicant punched his wife, bit her, poured bleach on her and ultimately cut her throat with a significant strike with a knife. The injury so caused was life-threatening. A doctor reported that it was only a matter of good luck that no major organ had been severed or that death had not ensued. The applicant was then seen to drink bleach and to cut his own throat.
3. Whilst the applicant made no admissions in interview, he entered a prompt plea of guilty to the offence of wounding with intent.
4. The circumstances thus related clearly called for the intervention of psychiatric evidence. Dr Mark Turner was so instructed and reported to the court on 8 February and 23 March 2007. Dr Turner's conclusions are succinctly stated in his second report. He indicated that the applicant suffered Bipolar I Disorder, Single Manic Episode which was in full remission and was not relevant to the offence. The doctor went on:

"Specifically, it is my view that [the applicant] is a vulnerable man who has found it difficult to form relationships and, having established a relationship with his wife, became dependent on her. When domestic tensions arose [the applicant] did not have the cognitive and social skills to understand and articulate his feelings and to problem-solve, and he therefore became irrational and started exhibiting impulsive violent and self-harming behaviour."

The doctor went on to state that, although it was ultimately a matter for the court, it was his view that the applicant's impulsivity and impaired rationality secondary social and developmental problems will have affected his responsibility for his actions at the material time.

5. Inevitably such evidence had a significant impact on the sentencing judge. In his sentencing observations he said:

"I have read a very careful and detailed report on you and it is apparent from that report that you present as a damaged personality because of your mental health difficulties. However, I am satisfied, having read that report, that you present a significant risk of serious harm to your wife for the foreseeable future, as I estimate she is also a vulnerable person. Accordingly, because of the seriousness of this offence, only custody is appropriate and I have to bear in mind the danger that you present."

The judge then went on to pass a sentence of imprisonment for public protection and stated that, in the absence of it, he would have passed a determinate sentence of eight years. That latter part of the sentence does not seem to be the subject of challenge.

6. The fact of the matter is that there may well still be feelings between the applicant and his wife. He says that she invited him into the house, and that was not gainsaid by anyone. He said to Dr Turner that he still loved her. The applicant may form other relationships in the future.
7. It is unusual to pass a sentence of imprisonment for public protection on a man of good character. However, section 225 of the Criminal Justice 2003 not only clearly contemplates that that might be so, but requires if the dangerousness provision is made out that such a sentence be passed in the absence of a life sentence. There is no doubt that this was a very serious offence. There is no doubt that there were strong emotive overtones suggesting utter recklessness to the safety of all others. Almost by definition this offence was unplanned, but the rage released was utterly uncontrolled. The court must ask itself whether in those circumstances the judge was entitled to conclude, as he did, that the dangerousness condition was made out.
8. It is the view of this court that the judge was eminently entitled to come to the decision he did, having regard to the singular features of this particular offence and the psychiatric evidence that was available to him. In those circumstances the sentence of imprisonment for public protection inevitably followed. For those reasons the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence must be refused.

_______________