Kelly Louise Allison [2019] EWCA Crim 1191

Kelly Louise Allison [2019] EWCA Crim 1191 concerned a renewed application for leave to appeal an extended sentence imposed by the Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne following conviction for applying a corrosive fluid with intent. The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), comprising Lady Justice Rafferty DBE, Mr Justice Julian Knowles, and the Recorder of Northampton His Honour Judge Mayo, dismissed the application.

The applicant had pleaded guilty on 8 June 2018 to applying a corrosive fluid with intent, contrary to section 29 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. On 8 October 2018 the Recorder imposed an extended sentence of nine years pursuant to section 226A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, comprising a custodial term of six years and an extended licence period of three years. No separate penalty was imposed for three further counts of criminal damage.

The applicant was 34 years old at sentence and had no previous convictions. She had been warned about her hostile behaviour towards her ex-partner by the police. She was entitled to full credit for her guilty plea. Three of her children were subject to care orders because of her mental impairment. She had longstanding mental health difficulties. The offences involved planning and she would have been aware that the chemical was likely to cause serious injury.

The author of a pre-sentence report assessed the applicant as posing a low risk of reoffending within two years but a high risk of serious harm to her son’s father. Psychiatric reports available to the sentencing judge set out her emotionally unstable personality disorder and on occasion hostility, aggression and unpredictability. Fluctuations in her presentation and mood would be exacerbated by her drug use. She had probably previously had a depressive episode. She had also suffered mental and behavioural disorders due to multiple drug use and use of psycho-active substances. The psychiatrist did not consider that she posed a significant risk of serious harm to the public, concluding that the risk to herself was greater and that she was not statutorily dangerous.

The Recorder found that the lack of serious lasting injury was to be mere good fortune. The offence, which he described as wicked, had a profound effect upon the family of the victim. He was surprised at the psychiatrist’s conclusion as to dangerousness. The Recorder applied the guideline relating to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and assessed the offence as at the very top of Category 2 or the bottom of Category 1. A sentence of nine years was reduced to six years in view of the guilty plea. The Recorder found that the applicant posed a significant risk because of her emotionally unstable personality disorder and linked behaviour, necessitating an extended sentence.

On appeal the six-year custodial term was not challenged. The single judge refused leave to appeal, observing that the judge was fully entitled to reach a different conclusion to the psychiatrist, to find that the applicant was dangerous and to impose an extended sentence. The single judge concluded that it was not arguable that the sentence was manifestly excessive or otherwise wrong in principle. The Court of Appeal agreed with that assessment. In short, the Recorder was entitled to depart from the psychiatrist’s assessment of dangerousness and the extended sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.