[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 >> Edwards, R. v William [2008] EWCA Crim 1526 (20 June 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2008/1526.html Cite as: [2008] EWCA Crim 1526

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

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		No. 2008/02642/A8 Royal Courts of Justice The Strand London WC2A 2LL
		20 June 2008

LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I will ask His Honour Judge Roberts QC to give the judgment of the court.

HIS HONOUR JUDGE ROBERTS:

1. The applicant's application for leave to appeal against sentence has been referred to the full court by the Registrar. We have granted leave and treat this as the hearing of the appeal.
2. The appellant is William Edwards. He is now aged 77. On 17 March 2008, in the Crown Court at Basildon, he pleaded guilty to manslaughter by gross negligence. He was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. We hope we will be forgiven in view of the hour if we express our conclusion and reasons shortly.
3. The case arose out of a tragic accident when the jib of a mobile crane sheared from its mounting in a breaker's yard in Essex, which was run by the appellant. The jib hit Mr Hassan Goussa who was there as a customer. He was unfortunately killed.
4. The appellant pleaded guilty to manslaughter on a written basis of plea which was accepted.
5. In passing sentence the judge said that, following a trial, he would have imposed a sentence in the order of 30 months' imprisonment. Having taken into account the very considerable mitigating factors in the case, he reduced that to a sentence of nine months' imprisonment.
6. We do not think that the judge can be faulted in any way for his approach to the case. Thirty months' imprisonment was an appropriate starting point and the mitigation made it entirely appropriate to reduce the sentence to one of nine months.
7. However, we have the advantage of a document which the judge did not have and which we feel tips the case from one where an immediate sentence of imprisonment was appropriate, as it was at the time of sentence, to one where the sentence can be suspended. At the time of sentence there was a psychiatric report which indicated that the appellant was suffering from a major depressive disorder. We have the advantage of an up-to-date assessment of his mental health which shows that his mental condition has deteriorated while he has been in custody. He is suffering from clinical depression and an anxiety disorder. He is not coping well with his present circumstances -- indeed, in view of his age prison is proving to be far more difficult for him than it would be for a younger person. For example, he is not able to work because he has been assessed as not being suitable.
8. In the circumstances, and without any reflection on the sentencing judge, we propose to quash the immediate sentence of imprisonment and to substitute in its place a sentence of nine months' imprisonment suspended for twelve months. There will also be a requirement of supervision for six months. To that extent the appeal is allowed.
______________________________________