[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> B, R v [2001] EWCA Crim 1479 (12 June 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2001/1479.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Crim 1479

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice The Strand London WC2
		Tuesday 12th June 2001

1. JUDGE GODDARD: On 5th January 2001 in the Crown Court at Basildon, this appellant pleaded guilty to arson being reckless as to whether life was endangered. On 8th March she was sentenced by Her Honour Judge Smith to 21 months' imprisonment. She appeals against that sentence with the leave of the single judge.
2. The facts were these. This appellant, who is 23, lived with her husband and four children aged 16, 5, 18 months and four months, in a three-bedroomed mid-terraced house. The eldest child was the husband's daughter from a previous relationship. He also had a 12-year-old son who was staying with them at the time of the offence.
3. During the afternoon of 18th August the appellant and her husband were at home with the youngest three children. They argued and she became violent towards her husband. She demanded that he and the children leave the house. They did so. Some time after 4 o'clock she was seen to cross the road, watch her home for a few moments and it was a short while after that that another neighbour seeing smoke and flames summoned the fire brigade. It took 40 minutes to put out the fire. Meanwhile the husband and children had returned and at about 5.20 the appellant also returned. She was crying. She said that she had been the last person in the house.
4. The fire had started in the first floor bedroom. The fire service considered that it was possible that it could have spread to adjoining properties through the loft space and without the intervention of the fire service the fire would have spread to adjoining properties within about 20 minutes.
5. In interview the appellant admitted starting the fire after an argument with her husband. She said that she set fire to a teddy bear and had not been planning to leave the house. She had intended to kill herself but had become scared of the fire. She said that she had gone looking for her family, sat down and then remembered what she had done and returned. She had not alerted the next door neighbours because she thought they were out. She also said in interview that she had been trying to deny the fact that she had postnatal depression again. They had a row, she told him to get out and then she just flipped.
6. This is a young woman with no convictions. The court had available to it a psychiatric report and we refer to the conclusions. In the opinion of Dr Wilding:

"Mrs B. has been suffering from depression for the past five years. This was precipitated by the birth of her first child and has subsequently worsened with the birth of her next two children. Prior to the offence Mrs B. had never received sufficient treatment for her depression culminating in a suicidal attempt, which led to the charge of arson.

She has, in the past two weeks, started to respond to the antidepressant. She no longer has any suicidal ideas. The nature of her depression at present is not of a degree to warrant admission to hospital either informally or under the Mental Health Act.

An episode of depression would require six to nine months treatment but in view of Mrs B.'s history, she is likely to require maintenance treatment. At a later date she would probably benefit from psychological intervention to address the issues of physical abuse during her childhood. Although violent behaviour is seen in cases of postnatal depression some of this could be learnt behaviour from her background and due to her feelings of depression she was unable to cope and address her problems in a more rational manner leading to the angry outbursts.

Mrs B. has only been receiving treatment for four weeks. If given a custodial sentence, her mental state remains vulnerable and there is a high possibility that it would deteriorate further. She would be at risk of suicide. If given a non-custodial sentence, she could be monitored in the community by the Criminal Justice Mental Health Team."

7. The pre-sentence report assessed the risk of harm to the public and the risk of re-offending and said at paragraph 10:

"Until such time as Mrs B. receives appropriate levels of both medical and psychological treatment, a risk of reoffending remains."

8. The author of the pre-sentence report asked for a probation order for one year with an emphasis of co-operation of all involved agencies.
9. There was also a letter from the appellant's husband before the learned trial judge. The judge described the facts and said this:

"On this day there was a bad argument. Your partner declined to confront his ex-partner about a matter relating to their son, and you lost your temper. Your husband took the children out so you could calm down, and you then decided to set fire to a teddy bear – in your words - because you were angry and he had given it to you. The fire got worse, and you decided to leave the property."

10. The learned judge said that she had taken into account the fact that she had been and were to a degree suffering from depression but it is clear that she had insight into what she was doing. She took into account the plea of guilty. She also said that there was no evidence of any suicidal thoughts prior to this time and said:

"You were extremely angry and, in the view of the court, wanted to teach your husband a lesson for not agreeing to what you wanted."

11. She concluded that it was so serious that only a custodial sentence was appropriate.
12. We have had the advantage of a prison report which describes the fact that there have been difficulties in prison. The appellant had been found trying to cut her wrist with a key. She made allegations of serious assault by other prisoners; that is being investigated, but has led to segregation. The Governor concluded:

"Mrs B. is clearly having a difficult time in coping with this prison sentence. She finds her problems somewhat overwhelming and in spite of the albeit limited support of prison staff becomes withdrawn and distressed.

There has been little opportunity for Mrs B. to make a great deal of progress during her time at Highpoint and I am not convinced that much can be done to help her whilst in prison custody."

13. Counsel, Mr Blake, in his grounds of appeal submitted that the sentence was wrong in principle because the judge had given insufficient weight to the psychiatric evidence and failed to consider whether there were exceptional circumstances justifying suspending the sentence. Counsel acknowledged that a prison sentence would normally follow a conviction for this form of arson but the authorities showed that there could be exceptional circumstances. He submitted that her age, her good character, small children and her vulnerable mental state, coupled with the devastating effect of prison on the family, amounted to exceptional circumstances. Secondly, he submitted that the learned judge was not entitled to come to her own conclusion that the fire was started in anger as opposed to a suicide attempt given that the latter is not challenged by the Crown.
14. We have today received a further letter from her husband in general support of his wife and describing the difficulties that prison has brought to the family.
15. We have set out the background in some detail so that our conclusion can be seen in context, our conclusion being that this is one of those very exceptional cases in this form of arson where custody need not be imposed. Having regard to her youth, her good character, her immaturity, her family, her plea and essentially her mental state, we have come to the conclusion that the right sentence here is one of a community rehabilitation order. Whatever the exact trigger it is clear that none of this would have happened but for the underlying depression.

LORD JUSTICE LAWS: Mrs B., you have heard the court's judgment given by Her Honour Judge Goddard, which will mean that you will be released because your prison sentence will be quashed. However, you will be subject to the supervision of a probation officer for 12 months because the court is making a community rehabilitation order – much the same as what used to be called a probation order. It is very important that you should understand that you must comply with all the reasonable instructions that the probation officer gives to you, keep any appointments to see him or her that are made, make sure that if there were any question of a change of address the probation officer knows about that. If you were to breach the terms of the order or commit any other offence meantime you could be brought back to the Crown Court and sentenced again for this offence. Do you understand?

THE APPELLANT: Yes.

LORD JUSTICE LAWS: Very well. That is the order of the court.