[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 >> Philipson, R. v [2008] EWCA Crim 1019 (18 March 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2008/1019.html Cite as: [2008] EWCA Crim 1019, [2008] 2 Cr App Rep (S) 110, [2008] 2 Cr App R (S) 110

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		18th March 2008

1. MR JUSTICE KING: This appellant was born on 6th February 1986. He is now some 22 years of age. Prior to the matters with which this court is concerned he was a man of no previous convictions. He appeals with leave of the single judge against a sentence of 16 months' imprisonment imposed at the Crown Court at Doncaster on 10th January 2008 by His Honour Judge Robinson for an offence of communicating a bomb hoax contrary to the Criminal Law Act of 1967. This had been committed on 10th November 2007. He had previously pleaded guilty at the first opportunity at the magistrates' court on 12th November, two days after the offence. He had been committed at the Crown Court for sentence. The judge obviously took as his starting point before plea a sentence of two years.
2. The bomb hoax had been communicated to the security site at the French Gate Shopping Centre in Doncaster at about 8.20 am on a Saturday morning. The appellant worked at the centre as a cleaner. It is sited in the centre of town and represents a main thoroughfare from the bus and main train stations to the town centre. The appellant approached one of the security guards at his place of work and handed in an envelope. He told the guard that a Portuguese man had handed him the envelope and told him to give it to security. In the window of the envelope the guard saw that the word "bomb" was written. He immediately passed this to his superviser. He opened the note and saw that it read: "If my information is good then you are security. There is a bomb in one of the car parks in a car. It will be armed at 11 o'clock. Just in case you don't believe me the main bomb is in one of the cars on the car parks. Tick tock". The police were called immediately, but in the meantime the appellant's superviser heard of the envelope and went to look at the letter. When he saw the handwriting he recognised it as belonging to the appellant. Because of that the police spoke to the appellant at about 9 o'clock in the morning.
3. The appellant denied writing the letter and repeated his story that it had been handed to him by another man. One of the officers asked the appellant to draw a map of where he was when the letter was handed to him, and from the writing on the map the officer recognised that the handwriting was the same as on the bomb threat. The appellant was arrested at 9.35 am and, when cautioned, replied: "Yes, I wrote the note, there is no bomb".
4. The appellant's home was searched and the police found draft bomb threat letters. In interview the appellant said he had written the bomb hoax letter the night before and also admitted that other drafts were written as practice. He said he had taken the letter to work but decided to rip it up. However, he had had a disagreement with his superviser and as a result decided to hand the letter in to scare his bosses. He wanted to be noticed.
5. When the appellant came before the sentencing judge there was much material before the court which indicated that the appellant had had a troubled and difficult life to date with mental health problems, which the offence clearly reflected. That material took the form of a psychiatric report from the appellant's treating clinician, Dr Ali, of 21st November 2007 and a pre-sentence report. These revealed that on 25th September 2007 the applicant had attempted to kill himself by tying a ligature around his neck. The police had become involved and ultimately he was taken to hospital where he was placed on a psychiatric ward for four days under Dr Ali's care. Following discharge the appellant was seen as an outpatient on 5th October and Dr Ali saw him again on 30th November following his release. Dr Ali's report showed that the appellant had had considerable difficulties in his life. He had never known his father and he had been subject to abuse as a child. He was bullied at school and suffered moderate learning difficulties and dyslexia. He had left without qualification but had been employed ever since as a cleaner working in the French Gate Centre. Dr Ali described him as a very caring, hard-working man with very low self-esteem, prone to act on impulse and easily overwhelmed by minor crisis. His working diagnosis was one of adjustment disorder with a background of emotional immaturity, hostility and learning difficulties and poor problem solving skills. The appellant had symptoms of traumatic stress disorder. He had a tendency to disassociate from reality. Dr Ali's view was that the behaviour reflected in the offence was meant to attract attention and demonstrated inner suffering and the need for others. The appellant was a vulnerable adult who could easily be exploited and who needed regular support and monitoring and would benefit from psychiatric treatment. Dr Ali said the appellant had demonstrated a lot of remorse for what he had done, was terrified of the prospect of going to jail, the risk of re-offending was low. Dr Ali recommended a probation order with psychiatric outpatient follow-up.
6. The pre-sentence report was in a similar vein. It spoke of the genuine remorse of the appellant and shared Dr Ali's assessment of character and personality. The author of that report characterised the offence as an isolated one and as a result of the appellant's inability to deal properly with his emotional difficulties. The likelihood of re-offending was said to be low. The report also thought that the experience of progressing through the courts would have a salutary effect. The author recommended a community order with a 12 month supervision and mental health requirement.
7. In passing sentence the judge accepted the mitigation available to the appellant by reference to his plea and good character and difficulties in his life, but was still of the opinion that a custodial sentence was inevitable.
8. The grounds of appeal are essentially these. In fixing a two year starting point, the judge failed adequately to reflect the limited agree of culpability properly to be attached to the appellant given the difficulties under which he was labouring, as evidenced by the psychiatric evidence. Counsel on his behalf also emphasises the minimal disruption in fact caused on the facts of this case. Beyond calling the police, there was no suggestion of any other emergency action taken and no inconvenience was caused. There was no attempt to close any part of the centre or the car park. No search took place. Within half an hour it seems the view was taken that this was a hoax, rather than a real threat.
9. The high watermark of the submission made to us is that this was such an exceptional case lacking the aggravating features normally present, and the personal difficulties of the appellant were such, that a non-custodial sentence should have been imposed, either by way of a community order or a suspended sentence.
10. We have sympathy with the submission that the starting point of two years was manifestly excessive in this case. However, we are equally of the view that the public and the emergency services require protection from those who potentially cause fear and disruption through bomb hoaxes, and that deterrence is of critical importance. It will be rare, if ever, that a bomb hoax offence will result in a non-custodial sentence, regardless of personal mitigation.
11. We consider that a custodial sentence was called for, but the length was too long. We allow this appeal to this extent. The starting point should have been that of nine months' imprisonment. In consequence, in light of the plea, we reduce the sentence imposed to that of six months.