No:  200004553/Y5
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London WC2
 
Tuesday, 17th October 2000
B E F O R E :

LORD JUSTICE ROCH

MR JUSTICE ROUGIER

and

MR JUSTICE GRAY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

R E G I N A

‑ v ‑

M E B

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel: +44(0)20 7404 1400  Fax: +44(0)20 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MR J BARNES appeared on behalf of the Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Tuesday, 17th October 2000
JUDGMENT
1.	MR JUSTICE ROUGIER:Some date early this year (which I do not think the court has been informed of) this applicant pleaded guilty before the justices to one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He was committed for sentence at the Crown Court and, after a certain delay during which his mental state was investigated, he was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment against which he now appeals by leave of the learned single judge.
2.	It is worth quoting the single judge’s remarks:
“This was an appalling incident as the witness statements make clear. I have given leave so that the Full Court can consider whether the medical evidence justifies a disposal other than an immediate custodial sentence.”
3.	The facts were indeed most disturbing. Just around mid‑day on 7th January, the appellant and the complainant, an elderly gentlemen in his late 70s, happened to be walking in the same direction, although on opposite sides of the street, in Bideford. For no reason whatever the appellant crossed the road, stared aggressively into the victim’s face, punched him hard in the face knocking him to the ground, and then proceeded to give him a thorough beating, kicking him about the body and even hitting him with a guitar which he happened to be carrying. When a passerby went to  the rescue, the appellant ran off. He admitted involvement when arrested but said there had been a fracas, some argument between himself and the complainant who, he suggested, had made some offensive gesture at him. All quite untrue.
4.	The first argument which Mr Barnes has advanced on behalf of his client is that for an offence of this type twelve months’ immediate imprisonment was a moderately severe sentence. We are bound to say that we find that a surprising submission. This was in no sense a trivial matter, nor can it be said that the victim was merely scratched. His dental plate was broken. His nose was bruised and extremely painful. He had an egg‑shaped lump on his forehead and bruises over his body. So much for the physical injuries. The mental distress and fear which this must have caused must also be taken into account. Indeed, on reading that this only attracted a sentence of twelve months, one’s first reaction might be that, other things being equal, it seemed somewhat on the lenient side.
5.	One asks, why did this man behave in this otherwise inexplicable fashion? The answer is that he is a schizophrenic, and no more vivid illustration of that could be afforded than the way in which he described what happened to the probation officer. Having originally said that the victim was lying to the  court and had attacked him in a doctor’s surgery, the appellant then went on to say that he thought that the victim:
“... has a savage and severe problem ‑‑ maybe she knows some people from another country or something ...”
6.	Adding “her point of view is completely wrong”. He went on to say:
“[There were] a lot of things going on recently and it is hard to explain. He [back to the right sex] was verbally quite abusive as far as I’m concerned ‑‑ sort of implying things ‑‑ he punched me one ‑‑ he grabbed my guitar ...”
7.	These are relatively classic signs of the delusions of schizophrenia. There is the paranoia ‑‑ the persecution complex as it is sometimes called ‑‑ the belief that other people are behaving aggressively towards one, and the aggressive response. This has been amply endorsed by psychiatric reports which have been produced on this man.
8.	So the learned Assistant Recorder was faced with one of the more difficult problems that any sentencer faces. Here we have a serious matter which ‑‑ other things being equal ‑‑ deserved relatively severe punishment, but committed by a person who was at the time, through no fault of his own ‑‑ with one exception to which we shall come ‑‑ suffering from a mental abnormality which triggered the offence.
9.	The reason that this happened was because ‑‑ as  is often the case with schizophrenic people ‑‑ he was not taking his medication properly. As long as that state of affairs continued he was bound to be an ongoing risk to the public.
10.	We should also mention that Mr Barnes drew our attention, as he drew the learned Assistant Recorder’s attention, to the fact that in between plea and sentence this man had actually been compulsorily admitted to hospital under section 3 of the Mental Health Act ‑‑ what is sometimes loosely called “sectioned” ‑‑ and he submits that that should be taken into account by the learned Assistant Recorder as effectively being the same thing that would have happened to him, or might have happened to him, had he been sentenced to imprisonment. Again, we cannot accept that submission because the “sectioning” of this man was part and parcel of his unfortunate disability and would have happened irrespective of the offence which he committed.
11.	Since sentence was passed, however, there has been a further development. While in confinement the appellant has continued to receive appropriate medication, and from a report from Dr Gallwey dated 14th September this year, one is happy to observe it is now the situation that the appellant has been brought to recognise the constant need to take his medication. He has been doing so. He shows no sign of active schizophrenia and is co‑operative and (more important perhaps) has been very shaken by his experience of a custodial sentence.
12.	With that in mind, we are prepared to regard this as an exceptional circumstance. Schizophrenia, diminishing as it does the moral responsibility for violent reaction to paranoid perception of the true state of affairs, is, in our judgment, capable of amounting to an exceptional circumstance even within the restricted ambit of section 5 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.
13.	We should underline the fact we are in no way criticising the learned Assistant Recorder for the sentence she passed at the time she passed it and in the circumstances in which she passed it. But in view of the more recent developments, we are persuaded that the more profitable way of dealing with the matter ‑‑ both from the point of view of the public and from the point of view of this man ‑‑ is to quash the sentence which was passed, substitute a sentence of six months’ imprisonment and suspend that for 18 months so that the appellant will still continue to realise the necessity of taking his medication and thereby preventing a repetition of this extremely unpleasant affair. The learned President of the Court will explain the  consequences of the suspension.
14.	LORD JUSTICE ROCH:Mr B., would you stand up please. The period of suspension will run from the date of sentence in the Crown Court. That is the 21st July of this year. If you commit any offence punishable with imprisonment within that period, you can be ordered to serve this six month sentence. Do you understand that?
15.	THE APPELLANT:Yes, your Honour.
16.	LORD JUSTICE ROCH:Very well.