[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 >> Meah, R. v [2011] EWCA Crim 1264 (20 April 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2011/1264.html Cite as: [2011] EWCA Crim 1264

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

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		20 April 2011

1. MR JUSTICE BLAIR: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence referred to the Full Court by the Registrar. The applicant is now aged 28. On 22 November 2010 after a three day trial at Southwark Crown Court, before His Honour Judge Testar and a jury, he was convicted of three counts of sexual assault contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. He received a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment concurrent on each count. In brief within a short period in the afternoon of 18 June 2009 at Liverpool Street Station the applicant touched the backsides of three different women. One felt a hard grab, another woman saw him blow a kiss at her afterwards. Two of the women promptly told the police and he was arrested.
2. The applicant has a number of previous convictions relating to the possession of drugs, being drunk and disorderly, for dishonesty, for assault on a police officer and for having an offensive weapon.
3. In his sentencing remarks the judge explained his concerns as follows. Since committing the offences in question the applicant had been convicted on 9 April 2010 of offences of common assault and battery committed after these offences - in other words when he was on bail. The assault and the battery consisted of his spitting at a woman who was alone on a train and then hitting her when she asked why he did it. The judge referred to "a rather worrying pattern when one examines the defendant's record." He said: "It is equally worrying that he appears to have no insight into psychological or psychiatric difficulties that he plainly has and refuses to cooperate in getting help."
4. In the event, there were three reports available by the time the judge came to sentence. A pre-sentence report dated 20 December 2010 recommended a psychiatric assessment. A psychiatric report dated 25 January 2011 from Dr Moore stated that the applicant had some symptoms which could be suggestive of a psychiatric illness. He would benefit from an ongoing psychiatric review to clarify his diagnosis and formulate a treatment plan. There was a similar psychiatric report dated 14 February 2011 from Dr Brown which also emphasised the need for an accurate diagnosis and the difficulty in doing that while the applicant appeared unwilling to engage with outpatient treatment with his local mental health service.
5. On 2 February 2011 when sentence was adjourned awaiting Dr Brown's report, the defendant became angry and an incident took place. He hammered on the dock and shouted. A computer monitor was knocked over. When the judge came to sentence him for the assaults on 15 February 2011 he dealt with that behaviour as a contempt of court, imposing a consecutive sentence of three months' imprisonment.
6. The points taken by Mr Parham on his behalf who has addressed us clearly and helpfully are straightforward. He submits that the overall sentence was too high for what was low level sexual offending. In normal circumstances he points out that a community sentence would be imposed. He says that the sentence imposed was well outside the guidelines, and when the three month sentence imposed for contempt is added, then the totality is excessive. As we have said, the judge passed concurrent sentences for the three assaults of 12 months' imprisonment, and a consecutive sentence of three months in respect of the contempt, making fifteen months in all.
7. Our conclusions are as follows. We readily accept that this was an unusual case. The judge was, we consider, right to be concerned about the state of the applicant's mental health for the reasons he gave. We are told that the present intention is to admit the applicant to the prison hospital wing for a period of observation. We hope that this can result in progress one way or another and that the applicant may see that it is in his interests to cooperate and obtain treatment for any problems which are diagnosed.
8. Meanwhile, this court must proceed on the information available to the judge. We have made clear the particular care with which the judge approached the sentencing exercise in this case. We recognise of course that a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment for the three sexual assaults taken in themselves would be too much. However, we note relatively minor but repeated offending, and in particular the incident on a train while on bail in respect of these offences for which the applicant received a sentence of two months' imprisonment. Taken together with the contempt matter as to which, in our view, there can be no complaint about the sentence, this has satisfied us in the unusual circumstances that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. For all these reasons, this application is refused.