[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 >> LS, R. v [2010] EWCA Crim 133 (22 January 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2010/133.html Cite as: [2010] MHLR 70, [2010] EWCA Crim 133

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

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		22 January 2010

1. SIR CHRISTOPHER HOLLAND: LS is aged 25. There is a history which gives rise to the present appeal. That history started on 9th April 2008 at Greenwich Magistrates' Court for possessing an offensive weapon, namely a meat cleaver, and for failure to surrender to bail, he received a 24 month conditional discharge. On 30th July 2008 at the same Magistrates' Court for an offence of having a bladed article, that is five-inch kitchen knife, he received a 24 month conditional discharge. The previous conditional discharge was allowed to continue. On 18th February 2009 at the same Magistrates' Court for possessing another offensive weapon in public, this time a dagger-style knife and for breaches of the two previous conditional discharges, he was sentenced to 12 weeks' imprisonment suspended for 12 months with a nine month supervision and mental health requirement. He appeared again at Greenwich Magistrates' Court, this time on 22nd September 2009, when he pleaded guilty to having an offensive weapon and was committed to the Crown Court for sentence. On 16th November 2009 at the Crown Court at Woolwich he was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment. Further, the court directed that having committed an offence before the expiry of the earlier suspended sentence, the 12 weeks' imprisonment was activated to be served consecutively. In the overall result the sentence was nine months' imprisonment with 12 weeks' imprisonment consecutive, with a direction that 56 days spent on remand should count towards sentence.
2. He applies for leave to appeal against sentence. That application has been referred to the full court by the Registrar. It has been advanced before us with the aid of submissions by Mr Potter. The upshot is that we give leave to appeal the sentence.
3. The short facts are these. At about 1.30 am on 19th September 2009 a member of the public was cycling past Lewisham Police Station when the appellant lunged at him with a knife. This was reported to the police. He was arrested outside the police station. The knife was recovered. It was described as a long-handled cheese knife with a four to five inch blade and twin points. In interview the appellant said that he had bought the knife earlier that day and had gone out drinking.
4. Before the sentencing court there were other reports. There was a pre-sentence report which recommended a community disposal and there was further a psychiatric report provided by Dr Bose, which concluded in these terms:

"LS is a 24 year old gentleman who has had two previous admissions to psychiatric hospital, both of them with psychotic symptoms. He has presented with paranoia, guarding and suicidal thoughts in the past. Dr Allen felt that he had a diagnosis of schizophrenia because of the deterioration of functioning, so called negative features of schizophrenia, such as poor self-care and, affective flattening and poor motivation. He has also had very strong suicidal feelings in the past.

He has been charged four times with possession of an offensive weapon in public. The first two occasions he did this because of his paranoia as protection from persecutors. He has been suffering with mental health problems during these times. More recently, it seems he deliberately tries to get arrested by bringing a knife out in situations where he will get arrested, such as in front of police stations.

During the last charge against him dated 19th September 2009 Mr LS had not been taking his medication for quite a few days and he was extremely stressed out after he had been beaten up by a gang and saw the car belonging to the gang parked near his place of residence.

I still believe that Mr LS is a low risk to public of direct violence, even though he has been arrested four times for carrying a knife in public, he seems to be taking the knife to the police station during these times and it seems that these extreme sometimes of stress and it seems to be his methods of crying for help when he cannot cope.

I still do not believe that a prison sentence is the best method of treatment for Mr LS at the moment and he is not mentally unwell enough at the moment to need a hospital order. However, he was suicidal when he was first admitted to HMP Belmarsh this time."

5. The specialist then went on to say that the appropriate disposal from his point of view would be to a supported hostel and he drew attention to the possibility of places at the Equinox project semi-supported accommodation scheme. That then led on to the other report that was before the sentencing judge, which was from those who ran that particular scheme, which endorsed the views of the psychiatrist as to the appropriate means of disposal and drew attention to what was then available, namely accommodation as supervised by that scheme.
6. It was with that material that the matter came before the sentencing judge, His Honour Judge Moore. He, however, directed himself, having read these reports, that there really were only two choices in the matter, either a mental health disposal or imprisonment. Given that there was no medical evidence to support a Mental Health Act disposal, he felt that he was driven to impose an immediate custodial sentence:

"I have a duty not only in relation to an offender but I also have a duty to the public, and I would be failing in my duty to the public if I did not impose an immediate custodial sentence. You are going to seek help. I hope that the Prison Services will be able to do so but, throughout the period when you are in prison, the public at least will be safe."

There was no indication in the course of the sentencing remarks as to why the judge rejected the notion of a community disposal as was the effective thrust of the reports that had been put before him.

7. The matter has now been before this court. For our part we are entirely satisfied that the judge was wrong, that this was not a case in which imprisonment was the only option. Indeed it is not a case in which imprisonment can be justified. What is plainly required is a community disposal with some fairly carefully crafted conditions so as to protect not only the public but also this man, given the mental health problems that he unfortunately suffers from.
8. This morning we have had the considerable assistance of the probation officer in reviewing the matter and in suggesting a package of terms that can be embodied in a community order. In a moment that order will be passed. Suffice it to say that we quash the sentence of imprisonment, we impose a community order and to that extent this appeal succeeds.
9. LORD JUSTICE DYSON: The order that we propose to make is a community order for 12 months, which will be a supervision order, 12 weeks of a structured supervision programme, a requirement for 12 months that the appellant lives at an address approved by the responsible officer. We understand that for the moment that will be his mother's address at [a] Road, London. Thereafter it will be at such other address as may be approved by the responsible officer.
10. You have explained all that to your client, have you?
11. MR POTTER: Yes.
12. LORD JUSTICE DYSON: And he is content to abide by those conditions?
13. MR POTTER: Yes.
14. LORD JUSTICE DYSON: Very well.