[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 >> G, R v [2002] EWCA Crim 634 (19 February 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/634.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Crim 634

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

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice The Strand London WC2
		Tuesday 19th February 2002

1. THE RECORDER OF MANCHESTER: On 14th September 2001 in the Crown Court at Inner London, this appellant pleaded guilty to the offence of arson being reckless as to whether life would be endangered. On 19th October 2001, he was sentenced by His Honour Judge Predergast to a period of 3 years' imprisonment. He appeals against sentence by leave of the Single Judge.
2. The sole issue in this matter relates to the ultimate disposal of this appellant. We need refer to the facts of the case only in passing to say that this, of course, was a very serious offence.
3. In passing sentence upon him the learned judge said:

"I am satisfied that this offence is so serious that only a custodial sentence can be justified for it. I am satisfied that the offence is so serious that no pre-sentence report is required.

I have a duty to protect the public."

4. This was clearly the case but the learned judge made no reference to the fact that the unanimous view of the two psychiatrists concerned, Dr Sullivan and Dr Wilkins, was that this appellant was sufficiently mentally ill to bring him within the provisions of the appropriate definitions under the Mental Health Act. There had been an earlier hearing before His Honour Judge Reid on 29th September 2001, so we are informed.
5. At that stage, Dr Sullivan having attended and given evidence in accordance with the evidential requirements under the Mental Health Act, told the court that, in his opinion, there was no necessity for the court to consider a restriction order under section 41 of the Act.
6. It may well have been the case, indeed, counsel Mr Walker has kindly indicated so, that at the time of passing sentence, no bed was available for this appellant in appropriate accommodation. But events have rather overtaken matters since that time, because since he was committed to prison, the appellant has been transferred to the Redford Lodge Psychiatric Hospital.
7. We have before the Court, today, confirmation from that hospital that there is a bed available to this appellant, at those premises and, the indication is given, that at the present time, the appellant is sufficiently ill to be retained at that hospital and that the doctor concerned envisages his admission to be likely to last a number of months.
8. In all the circumstances of this case, it would appear appropriate that the current lodgment of the appellant is the appropriate one, and that the sentence of 3 years' imprisonment will accordingly be quashed, and the appeal allowed to that extent. The Court will substitute for the sentence originally passed an order under section 37 of the Mental Health Act, there being no requirement for any restriction to be made, for the reasons stated, under section 41 of that Act.
9. It is not appropriate to make any order in these circumstances, relating to the representation of the appellant.