![]() |
[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 >> Phillips, R. v [2022] EWCA Crim 1474 (28 October 2022) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2022/1474.html Cite as: [2022] EWCA Crim 1474 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
The Strand London WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE SWEENEY
MRS JUSTICE COCKERILL DBE
____________________
R E X | ||
- v - | ||
NICO PHILLIPS |
____________________
Lower Ground, 18-22 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1JS
Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: [email protected]
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
LADY JUSTICE SIMLER:
Introduction
The background
Sentence
"On the basis of the presentation whilst in hospital, here was no evidence during the assessment to indicate that [the applicant] suffered from a mental disorder of either a nature or a degree that would warrant detention in hospital under the Mental Health Act, and therefore this matter would not be suitable for a disposal under the Mental Health Act in a hospital setting or, in my opinion, the community."
"I also contacted the in-reach team at HMP Wormwood Scrubs regarding the suitability of [an] MHTR for [the applicant] and received the following response from Dr Jaleel Mohammed, who recently assessed [the applicant] on 10th January 2022;
'I am in agreement with Dr Hillier's views on the case. I found no evidence of mental illness. He has a personality disorder.
He appears to be functioning well. He stated to me that he was studying law at university which he will continue upon his release and he is arranging a civil claim against his landlord which he believes is likely to result in him being awarded significant damages.
I am not sure why he was transferred to hospital under section 48, the plan was for an admission under section 38 for an assessment. I found no reason for him to be under the care of MHIRT in prison after his return. Similarly I see no benefit in [an] MHTR.
Offender PD pathway and STAC involvement may be helpful depending on his willingness to engage.'
…"
The proposed appeal
(1) all of the medical records and assessments indicated that the issue in this case was one of health care rather than criminal culpability. The Recorder did not give sufficient consideration to the health issues when identifying culpability and sentence;
(2) the length of sentence failed to take account of the mental health issues;
(3) the Recorder should have had a Mental Health Act disposal in mind and should have imposed such a disposal.
In addition, the applicant complains that on recall he has been given no assistance and that his health has deteriorated.