CRIMINAL DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
HIS HONOUR JUDGE BEVAN QC T20127072
REFERENCE BY THE CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISION UNDER S.9 CRIMINAL APPEAL ACT 1995
Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MRS JUSTICE THORNTON
SIR ROBIN SPENCER
____________________
REX | ||
- v - | ||
HUGO OKECHA NWANKWO |
____________________
Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR DUNCAN ATKINSON KC appeared on behalf of the Crown
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
LORD JUSTICE WILLIAM DAVIS:
Introduction
The factual background
The sentence
The grounds of appeal
• First, the minimum term was set without any allowance being made for the time spent by the appellant on remand prior to his sentence. In addition, before he was remanded in custody, the appellant was on police bail to which a doorstep curfew between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. was applied. The curfew operated from 20 August 2011 to 1 March 2012. No reduction was made to the minimum term to allow for any part of this deprivation of liberty.
• Second, recently obtained psychiatric evidence shows that the appellant was suffering from mental disorder which, had the judge been aware of it, would have affected his assessment of the appellant's culpability. This is the evidence which is the subject of the application pursuant to section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.
• Third, the uplift of 4 years from the starting point of 12 years in paragraph 7 of the 2003 Act (as it then was) was excessive when compared to the uplift applied to the adult defendants whose roles were more significant than that of the appellant.
(a) whether the evidence appears to the Court to be capable of belief;
(b) whether it appears to the Court that the evidence may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;
(c) whether the evidence would have been admissible in the proceedings from which the appeal lies on an issue which is the subject of the appeal; and
(d) whether there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence in those proceedings.
"The sentencer, who will be in possession of all relevant information, is in the best position to make an assessment of culpability. Where relevant expert evidence is put forward it must always be considered and will often be very valuable. However, it is the duty of the sentencer to make their own decision, and the court is not bound to follow expert opinion if there are compelling reasons to set it aside."
Our task is to decide whether the evidence of Dr Pascall, had it been available to the judge, would have led him to conclude that the appellant's culpability was reduced by his mental disorder.
"He says he was in a zone, the adrenaline, he was so hyper that everything was in slow motion, he was panicked and felt his back to the wall. There was shouting and more bottles being thrown outside the club ... He was panicked."
Conclusion