R v Bethany Holland [2025] EWCA Crim 1628

WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.This Transcript is Crown Copyright.  It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority.  All rights are reserved.[2025] EWCA Crim 1628Venue Royal Courts of JusticeStrandLondonWC2A 2LLDate Friday, 31 October 2025
Before
LADY JUSTICE WHIPPLEMR JUSTICE LAVENDERHIS HONOUR JUDGE DENNIS WATSON KC(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)
Between
REXCrownV
Between
BETHANY HOLLAND__________Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JETel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)_________MS R SCOTT appeared for Applicant_________J U D G M E N T
[1]This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence. We grant leave to appeal for reasons we shall come to.[2]On 5 April 2024 the appellant pleaded guilty at Kingston-Upon-Hull Crown Court to offences of attempted robbery and having an article with a blade or a point, namely a kitchen knife. On 28 November 2024 Her Honour Judge Moreland sentenced the appellant to an extended determinate sentence of eight years, pursuant to section 279 of the Sentencing Act 2020, comprising a custodial term of four years and an extended licence period of four years for the offence of attempted robbery. The judge imposed a concurrent term of 15 months for the possession of the knife. The facts[3]On 1 March 2024 at approximately 1:30 pm, police received a call from the manager of Holderness News, a convenience store in Hull. The complainant reported that the appellant had been threatening to stab staff inside the shop. The complainant stated that the appellant had a carving-type knife and had been waving it around and demanding money from the till. The knife was black-handled with a stainless steel blade 15 to 20 centimetres long.[4]The appellant continued to wave the knife at the staff for 5-6 minutes. She made jabbing motions towards the other two members of staff who were behind the serving counter, repeatedly shouting:
"Give us all the money out of the till."
The appellant's behaviour then changed. She lowered the knife and stated:
"I'm sorry I need some help."
She sat down on the floor near the tills and remained there until the police arrived a few minutes later. She was still holding the knife but put it down as soon as the police told her to and did not resist arrest.[5]The appellant was interviewed the same day. She made full admissions to the offences and explained that she had been hearing voices. She also informed officers that she had been on medication for her mental health issues which usually helped with voices. She said she had debts of about £1,500. She said she was shocked and embarrassed to see her actions on CCTV. She was held in custody on remand from that date.[6]She did not enter a guilty plea when she appeared at the Magistrates' Court the next day. Instead the Better Case Management form was endorsed in this way:
"Likely to be guilty plea at Crown Court."
On her first appearance at the Crown Court she did enter her guilty pleas. The appellant[7]The appellant is now 32 years old. She has two previous court appearances which are relevant. The first was in 2021 when the appellant pleaded guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm and was sentenced to eight weeks' immediate imprisonment. That related to an incident on 13 July 2021 when the appellant, who was then resident in supported living accommodation in Bridlington, was heard shouting to herself. A member of staff approached her to check on her welfare. She became aggressive and made threats to kill that staff member. The appellant then pushed the staff member into a wall, grabbed her hair and pushed her down to the floor. A manager tried to intervene but without success and the appellant punched the staff member to her face multiple times, causing a cut to that person’s lip and nose and some bruising to the arm. She also spat at the back of the that person’s head. The police attended and arrested the appellant. In police interview the appellant fully admitted the assault and stated she knew that it was wrong but her mental health and her temper just got the better of her so she could not control herself.[8]The second court appearance was in December 2022 when the appellant pleaded guilty to affray and assault on an emergency worker and was sentenced to 14 months' immediate imprisonment. That offence was committed in August 2022 when the appellant went into Herons Food Store in Bridlington. A recorded announcement that shoplifting would not be tolerated appears to have triggered the appellant who began to throw items, including a number of bottles of wine, at a member of staff who was stacking shelves. The staff member thought the appellant may have thought he was shoplifting and he tried to show her his name badge but it had no effect. The appellant then threatened to kill two other members of staff and hit one of them with a bottle, grabbed her hair, kicked her and knocked her glasses off. The appellant also attacked a customer and hit him with a bottle on his head. When a security guard and police officer attempted to restrain the appellant, she spat on the police officer's face and had to be put in a spit guard.[9]The appellant has longstanding mental health issues evidenced in two psychiatric reports which were before the sentencing judge. The first is by Dr Vandenabeele dated 11 June 2024. He concluded that there were significant grounds to suggest that the appellant was suffering from a functional psychotic illness such as paranoid schizophrenia (paragraph 16.4) and that she was suffering from such a condition at the material time, i.e. when she committed the index offences (paragraph 16.5). Notwithstanding these difficulties, he thought she was fit to plead to the index offences. The second is by Dr Gupta dated 17 October 2024. He agrees that the appellant was likely to be suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and that she had had significant delusions, hallucinations and lack of insight in the past, but he noted that by the time he assessed her in October 2024, by which point she had been in a controlled custodial environment for around six months, she was well maintained on current medications and her symptoms had subsided significantly (paragraph 10A).[10]By the time of sentence two other important documents were available. The first was a letter dated 14 November 2024 from Cheryl Craven, Advanced Practitioner and Practice Educator in the Prison and MAPPA team, who had worked with the appellant since 2023 when she was released on licence from her earlier term of imprisonment. Miss Craven noted the appellant's long history of mental health problems and her need for depot injections to manage her paranoid schizophrenia. Miss Craven said that when the appellant's mental health symptoms increased the appellant suffered distressing audio hallucinations and an increase in delusional thinking. These episodes occurred even when her medication was well managed. Ms Craven’s view was that the appellant "requires robust support to help her manage her mental health"; that support was available in the prison system but not available in the community where the appellant had little support; and assessed her “as requiring a residential setting that can support her mental health, develop her independent living skills and safeguard her from risk to herself and from others".[11]At the time of writing that letter there was a specialist place available for the appellant but unfortunately the sentencing hearing did not take place when it was first listed (on 15 November 2024) and by the time of the adjourned hearing on 28 November 2024 that place had been lost. On 28 November 2024 the appellant did not want another adjournment and so the sentencing hearing went ahead without any residential provision in view.[12]The second important document, prepared specifically for the adjourned sentencing hearing, was an addendum pre-sentence report dated 27 November 2024. Mat Sugden was the author of that pre-sentence report. We have found that report to be extremely helpful. Mr Sugden noted the appellant's tendency to violence linked to emotional instability at times of suffering poor mental health. He noted that a worrying pattern was developing, with similarities between her last offending and the index offending although the present offending was compounded by financial motivation. Mr Sugden noted reports that the appellant had shown many behavioural problems during the first part of the sentence imposed in December 2022 (for affray and assault) and said this was "a time when her mental health problems were acute". He said that she had developed more positive behaviour subsequently, assisted by her compliance with medication. She had very recently started to exhibit bizarre behaviour which might have been linked to her anxiety about her sentencing hearing and the possibility that she might be released. Mr Sugden commented that "even when properly medicated and in a controlled and safe environment [the appellant] remains vulnerable to stress that can in turn promote a deterioration in her mental health." He said that the availability of a suitable placement would have a pivotal effect on sentencing recommendations and that if a suitable placement was available he could recommend a community-based sentence but if no suitable accommodation was available the only sentence which would protect the public and the appellant and would offer a prospect of longer term rehabilitation was one of immediate custody with a carefully planned release. Sentence[13]The sentencing judge recited the facts. She referred to the sentencing guideline for robbery. She said this was Category A because the appellant had produced a bladed article during the course of the robbery. This was Level 2 harm as the prosecution had contended, rejecting the defence submission that this was Level 3 harm. Category A2 had a starting point of five years in a range of four to eight years. The judge said:
"The difficulty in sentencing this case is balancing the harm that you have done by the commission of this serious offence and your own mental health difficulties ... "
[14]The judge identified the previous convictions as an aggravating factor. She said they were very concerning and raised the question of dangerousness. As further aggravation the judge noted that the appellant's period of licence for the affray and assault had only just expired, yet she had brought the carving knife to the scene and had persisted in her attempt to use that knife until the police arrived and arrested her. As mitigation, the judge referred to the appellant's paranoid schizophrenia and emotionally unstable personality disorder.[15]The judge concluded that the appropriate sentence after trial was five years and four months. With 25 per cent credit for guilty plea the resulting sentence was one of four years. The judge found the appellant to be dangerous and imposed an extended sentence of eight years with a custodial element of four years and an extension period of four years. She imposed a concurrent sentence of 15 months for the offence of having a bladed article. Grounds of appeal[16]Miss Scott, who represented the appellant below and on this appeal, advances three grounds of appeal as follows. First, the defendant's reduced culpability due to mental illness had not been properly reflected in the sentence. Secondly, had the appropriate reduction been imposed an extended sentence could not have been passed. Third, the appellant’s admissions in interview should have been considered as a mitigating factor. Adjourned hearing[17]We heard Miss Scott's submissions on Wednesday 29 October 2025. We were undecided on the outcome at that hearing and so adjourned the matter to 31 October 2025 with a request for further information to be obtained as to where the appellant might be placed if we were to allow the appeal. We noted that the appellant had already spent 19 months in custody, which equates to a sentence of just short of four years, assuming release at the 40 per cent point.[18]By the time of the resumed hearing on 31 October 2025, we had further information available to us. We were told that the appellant had been assessed by a psychiatrist and had been moved to the advanced Health Care Wing of HMP New Hall, because of her symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia. At the time of the resumed hearing, she was on that wing.[19]We heard from Miss Fern Adams, the Senior Mental Health Nurse at HMP New Hall and Miss Trish Adams, Senior Probation Officer, both of whom attended the resumed hearing. Miss Fern Adams confirmed that the appellant had now been sectioned under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and would be transferred to a psychiatric intensive care unit. She said that if this Court were to allow the appeal, that transfer would take place under section 48 of the Mental Health Act, but if the Court dismissed the appeal, the transfer would be under section 47 of the Mental Health Act. It was her evidence that the appellant was in an acute phase of mental health illness and required intensive support.[20]We are grateful to those involved in the assessment of this appellant at our request and we note the quick and efficient dispatch of that request. We also are grateful for Miss Scott's careful submissions on the appellant's behalf. The Impairment Guideline[21]This was an extremely difficult sentencing exercise for the judge. This appellant committed serious offences, but she was mentally unwell at the time of her offending. Additionally she had previous convictions which were relevant, recent and worrying. The judge made reference to the Sentencing Council Guideline for Robbery but there was no reference in her sentencing remarks to the Guideline on Sentencing Offenders with Mental Disorders, Developmental Disorders or Neurological Impairments ("the Impairment Guideline"). Miss Scott candidly accepts that she did not refer the judge to the Impairment Guideline which was an oversight on her part. The Imposition Guideline has taken centre stage in this appeal.[22]Section 2 of the Impairment Guideline relates to assessing culpability. Miss Scott notes that the appellant has a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia which is an impairment listed in Annex A (see paragraph 9). The sentencer should consider whether culpability was reduced by reason of that impairment (see paragraph 10) looking for a "sufficient connection" between the impairment and the offending behaviour (see paragraph 11). A careful analysis of all the circumstances of the case and all relevant materials is required (see paragraph 12).[23]Miss Scott relies on Dr Vandenabeele's report to argue that the appellant's offending was connected with her schizophrenia which was in an acute phase at the time of this offending and that the appellant's culpability was reduced in consequence. This was not merely a factor going to mitigation but more centrally to culpability.[24]The most relevant parts of Dr Vandenabeele's report are at paragraph 16.8:
"However, it is my view that her mental health difficulties at the material time, namely the acute psychotic episode, would, in my opinion, have likely reduced her culpability. Based upon the account she gave me it would seem that at the material time she was troubled by auditory hallucinations. It is also my view that the presence of such acute psychotic symptoms would have increased her propensity to act in an aggressive and disinhibited manner. It is my view that therefore her culpability was likely reduced, however this and the extent of any reduced culpability is ultimately a matter for the Court to determine."
[25]Dr Gupta did not comment in his report on the appellant's mental state at the time of this offending. The appellant had been in a controlled environment for some time by the time Dr Gupta saw her and her mental state was improved.[26]With respect to this very experienced judge, we agree with Miss Scott that the question of culpability needed to be addressed under the Impairment Guideline, in light of the evidence connecting the appellant's mental health impairment with the offences she committed. If the judge was satisfied that there was a sufficient connection then culpability was reduced and the judge had to assess the extent of that reduction. Dr Vandenabeele made an explicit connection between the appellant’s mental health and the offending. The PSR and Miss Craven's letter offered a broadly consistent view that this appellant had substantial mental health issues which were relevant to her offending that day. There was plainly a connection which should have been considered for sufficiency and extent.[27]We conclude that the judge was in error in not approaching this sentencing exercise by considering, separately from the question of mitigation, whether the appellant's culpability was reduced applying the Impairment Guideline. That was an error of principle. Miss Scott has made out her first ground of appeal and we will quash the sentence imposed by the judge. Re-Sentence[28]We are satisfied that the evidence does establish a sufficient connection between the appellant's mental health impairment and the offences committed, such as to show her culpability was reduced. We have had regard to the factors specified in the Impairment Guideline in determining the extent of that reduction: the appellant's ability to exercise appropriate judgment was diminished; it is self-evident that she was not at the time of the offending making rational choices; she may or may not have been able to understand the nature and consequences of her actions.[29]The reduction in culpability can in this case most conveniently be reflected by a downwards adjustment to the culpability category under the robbery guideline. Culpability Category C lists "mental disability or learning disability were linked to the commission of the offence" as an indicator. However, there is also a Category A feature present in this case, in the appellant's decision to take a knife to the scene and to use that to threaten staff in the shop. Category B extends to cases where there are factors present in A and C which balance each other out. We are satisfied that Category B is the appropriate culpability category in this case. Ms Scott did not challenge harm categorisation 2.[30]The starting point for Category B2 is four years in a range of three to six years. We take four years as our starting point. There was significant aggravation in the form of the appellant's previous convictions and the fact that the licence from her previous conviction had only just concluded. We disregard two factors counted as aggravation by the judge: first that she had brought the knife to the scene, because that is already taken into account in our consideration of culpability; secondly, that the appellant persisted in her attempts to use the knife until the police arrived, because the evidence suggests that she stopped threatening shop staff with the knife of her own accord. But still, there is significant aggravation.[31]As to mitigation, we have already taken account of the appellant’s mental health difficulties and do not count them again. That she stopped her threats of her own accord is to her credit but on the other hand her threats went on for five to six minutes before she stopped, which must have felt like a very long time to the staff in the shop, so this is ultimately a neutral factor. But we find mitigation in two ways: first, a point not noted by the judge but raised by Miss Scott, in the fact that this was an attempt and not the completed offence; and secondly, in her frank admissions in interview which are to her credit and should have carried some (slight) weight. We accept Miss Scott's third ground of appeal.[32]In our judgment the aggravation outweighs the mitigation and we come to a notional sentence after trial of four and a half years or 54 months. Miss Scott does not challenge the reduction of 25 per cent for the guilty plea entered at the first hearing. The resulting sentence, with rounding down, is one of 40 months. In those circumstances no issue of dangerousness arises because the sentence is less than four years (section 280 of the Sentencing Act 2020). Miss Scott succeeds on her second ground: this should not have been an extended sentence.[33]The judge assessed the appellant as dangerous. But the dangers which this appellant might pose to herself or to other members of the public will have to be managed through safeguarding processes under the Mental Health Act. The appellant has already been sectioned and those processes are underway.[34]In summary, we quash the extended sentence of eight years, comprising a custodial element of four years with an extension period of four years and impose in its place a determinate sentence of 40 months. The concurrent sentence of 15 months for the bladed article remains unaltered.[35]To that extent, this appeal is allowed.[36]MISS SCOTT: My Lady, may I apply for a representation order for today and Wednesday, please?

LADY JUSTICE WHIPPLE:

[37]Yes, you may have a representation order for both hearings. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE38. Tel No: 020 7404 140039. Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk