Adil Mahmood [2019] EWCA Crim 1267

The appellant pleaded guilty to manslaughter and arson and was sentenced to 8 years and 6 months imprisonment with hospital and limitation directions given under s45A of the Mental Health Act 1983. In his grounds he argued that a reference to s45A was not appropriate or justified and the appropriate sentence should have been a hospital order under s37 of the Act, coupled as appropriate with a restriction under s41. When the case came to be dealt with the appellant had been released from hospital back to prison such that the court may not be able to substitute a sentence under s37 with or without restriction. The appellant decided not to pursue the grounds challenging the s45A order and confined it to challenging the length of the custodial sentence.

The deceased was sleeping rough in a car and as a small-time drug dealer he was supplying the appellant. They were seen arguing on the night in question and started to fight, the deceased headbutted the appellant who retaliated with four punches. The deceased was already in a poor state of health and fell to the ground. The appellant returned to the scene, realised the deceased had died and set fire to the car. It was evident the appellant was suffering from paranoid delusions and rambling behaviour and although he was a paranoid schizophrenic there was no psychiatric defence to murder. His plea was accepted on the basis of lack of intent to kill or cause really serious injury.

The defence argued that a starting point of 13 years before guilty plea credit was too long and went as far as suggesting that a sentence of no more than 4 years was appropriate. The manslaughter guidelines did not apply at the time of sentence although the court did look de bene esse at them at counsel’s request.

Held: although the paranoid schizophrenia of the appellant was an important factor to take into account it was only one factor, highly operative in causal terms was his failure to take his prescribed medication. The offending occurred in the context of him obtaining drugs and he had convictions for serious offences of violence. He retained a very significant degree of culpability for the offending and reflecting the further serious matter of the arson, in effect trying to burn potential incriminating evidence, there was no fault in the sentence imposed. The appeal was dismissed.