[2025] EWCA Crim 1237

The offender was born on 9 July 1975 and is 50 years old.

The sentencing court had before it various documents, including a detailed sentencing note drafted by the Crown; an expert psychiatric report prepared by Dr Raman Deo, dated 27 June 2024, which set out the injuries suffered by the offender, his amnesia, cognitive functioning impairment and prognosis. It also dealt with fitness to plead. In addition, there was an expert neuropsychology report, prepared by Dr Green, dated 11 November 2024. This further set out the injuries suffered by the offender, his reported amnesia, some cognitive impairment and his prognosis, including difficulty living independently and reported memory issues. There were supervision reports and a pre-sentence report, dated 19 June 2025. This, in summary, stated that, having been brought up in care, the offender had been addicted to drugs for many years. As a result, Probation intervention had been problematic. However, the report dealt with the marked difference in the offender's attitude since his injury. Probation officers who knew the offender, had seen a real change. He had motivation to abstain from drugs and to attain justice for the attack upon him. His memory issues were noted, but engagement with Probation was much improved. Whilst his life remained chaotic, he was keeping appointments and wanted meetings kept to regular times in order to maintain his appointments.

In passing sentence the judge considered the Crown's sentencing note but commented that whether he agreed with everything in it was another matter. He indicated that count 1 on the drugs indictment was both the trigger offence and the lead offence. In respect of the particulars of the indictment in relation to count 1, the judge said that he had previously pointed out on three occasions that the charge that was drafted concerned one day and did not necessarily represent the evidence that had been served. He took the view that a Newton would not resolve the problem with the particulars of the indictment.

The judge went on that since the offender's serious attack, blue water was between events prior to and events after that date. Prior to that, he was a recidivous offender. Since that incident, there had been a single breach of a Restraining Order which was in different circumstances to that which might ordinarily occur.

The judge said that what had been going on in this case needed to be set out so that anyone reviewing the case appreciated his thinking and concerns. The judge went on to summarise the attack on the offender in September 2023, and that the offender was to be a witness in his own attempted murder trial. The judge also went on to summarise the offender's serious injuries, and the ongoing effect of them, as set out in the reports of Dr Deo and Dr Green.

The judge referred to the consistency between the applicable assessments required in implementing the minimum term and activating the suspended sentence order. The judge noted that the same three considerations applied: strong personal mitigation, a realistic prospect of rehabilitation and whether an immediate custodial sentence would have a serious impact on others.

The judge again referred to there being a 12 year gap between the last drugs trafficking offence and count 1, and the offender's significant change in behaviour due to life-changing events.

Consequently, the judge took the view that implementation of the minimum term and activation of the suspended sentence would be unjust. Therefore a three year community order was passed in relation to each imprisonable offence, to run concurrently, with the Building Choices programme, 25 Rehabilitation Activity Requirement days and the GPS monitoring for 18 months which should allow for his wellbeing to be monitored and for him to be traced in relation to being a witness next year. It was the judge's intention that the GPS monitoring continue until the date of the attempted murder trial. A nominal fine of one pound was imposed to mark the breach of the suspended sentence order.