Guernsey Legal Resources

  Held: (1) The accused would be sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment (to run from the date of his arrest in January 2006), to be followed on release by an extended sentence licence for three years.

  (2) Three categories of cases of diminished responsibility needed to be considered for sentencing purposes: (a) where an offender was a danger to the public, an indefinite order for detention was appropriate; (b) where there was only a minimal degree of responsibility, then a custodial sentence was not indicated; and (c) where the accused’s responsibility was not minimal, the court should pass a determinate sentence of imprisonment, the length of which would depend on the court’s assessment of the degree of his responsibility, and its view as to the length of time for which the accused would continue to be a danger to the public (R. v. Chambers (1983), 5 Cr. App. R. (S.) 688, followed).

  (3) The accused here fell into the third category. His responsibility was not eliminated but only reduced and there remained considerable residual culpability meriting punishment—hence the custodial sentence of seven years (R. v. Stubbs (1994), 15 Cr. App. R. (S.) 57, observations of Lord Taylor, C.J. considered). Although he was not a danger to the public, he would need to cooperate closely during the subsequent licence period both with his supervising officer and in the treatment of his psychiatric condition, and the terms of the licence would accordingly be restrictively framed to ensure this cooperation.