Attorney-General's Reference No 24 of 2009

LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Cindy Bradbury is 35 years of age. She appeared at the Newport Crown Court charged with a number of offences, including attempting to commit arson with intent to endanger life, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. On 20th January 2009 she pleaded guilty to that offence. The prosecution elected not to proceed on the other charges. On 19th February 2009, His Honour Judge Richards sentenced her to two years' imprisonment.

Her Majesty's Attorney General, represented by Mr Atkinson, seeks the leave of the court to refer the sentence as unduly lenient. We give leave.

The facts of the case are as follows. Mr and Mrs Bently Morris lived next door to the offender in Granville Close, Newport. They had lived in their house for some 35 years. Sadly, the last few years have been blighted by what the prosecution alleged was an obsessive campaign of harassment of her neighbours (the Morrises and a family called the Horners) by the offender. Police officers who attended Granville Close over the years confirmed much of what the neighbours alleged but it is right to say that the offender, Miss Bradbury, denies acting unlawfully towards them. She claims that her neighbours have ganged up on her. At one stage she suggested the police had joined in the conspiracy as well. She has yet to be tried, if she is to be tried, on a charge of harassment of her neighbours with which she was charged on 30th March 2008. The relevance as far as we are concerned is that she was remanded on bail for that charge on condition that she did not enter Granville Close and she did not contact the prosecution witnesses. This included Mr and Mrs Morris.

The offender breached those conditions on a number of occasions. This prompted Mr and Mrs Morris to decide they had no option but to move home. They moved into Mr Morris' sister's home on the other side of Newport in Queen's Hill Crescent. We are told it is a terraced house. The police installed a panic button linked to the police station in case the offender discovered where Mr and Mrs Morris were living. Unfortunately she did just that.

Having been arrested on 18th June for breach of bail and released on 25th June, again on condition she stayed away from the Morrises, she decided to track down Mr Morris. On 30th June 2008 she saw him and was later to claim that the sight of him "wound her up". She decided to exact revenge upon him and his wife for the charges brought against her. She must have followed them to where they lived.

At about 9.30 that evening she went to a service station in Newport. She filled her car, but also a plastic washing-up bottle, with petrol. She drove from the petrol station straight to Queen's Hill Crescent, arriving there at about 9.50 pm. She approached the front door of No 77 Queen's Hill Crescent where the Morrises were staying. They were at home with Margaret Corten, Mr Morris' sister.

Mr Morris saw the offender approaching the address. He activated the alarm, thereby summoning the police. Unaware of this, the offender started to spray petrol from the washing-up bottle through the letter box of the address. Bently Morris opened the door to confront the offender. She started to spray him, his upper and lower body, with petrol. He grabbed her in a bear hug with her back against his chest. The offender was holding a plastic cigarette lighter in her right hand. She attempted repeatedly to strike the lighter shouting, "I've got a fucking lighter, you're going to go up". Neighbours intervened to assist Mr Morris in restraining the offender. As they did so she continued to struggle fiercely, kicking and attempting to bite Mr Morris. She also continued to attempt to ignite the lighter and the petrol that she had sprayed over Mr Morris and the premises. She was shouting, "I'm going to fucking kill you."

Police officers arrived shortly before 10 pm to find Cindy Bradbury restrained on the floor. They took her, the lighter and the washing-up bottle off to the police station.

In the custody suite at the station the offender said, "I wanted to kill him." She was searched and a handwritten note was found in her pocket which read, "I'll be back." The prosecution contended that she intended to leave this note at the scene had she succeeded in her plan to ignite the petrol.

She was interviewed on 1st July. She said it was seeing the washing-up bottle at her mother's home which gave her the idea of going to her neighbour's house with a bottle filled with petrol. She knew that the Morrises had had their front door set alight or had petrol poured on it on a previous occasion and she knew it had upset them. The Crown allege that she knew of this incident because she was responsible: it was one of the incidents that formed part of her alleged campaign of harassment. She described buying the petrol and taking it to Queen's Hill Crescent. She described her state as being “wound up”, “angry”, “her head was in a mess”. She told the police officers she had not intended to do anything with the petrol. She just waved it around. She said her intention was to frighten rather than harm. She admitted that she had taken steps to try and disguise her features. She specifically denied squirting petrol through the letter box. She had the audacity to suggest that Mr Morris may have sprayed the petrol on the house himself and the petrol found its way onto Mr Morris because it spilt during the course of the struggle. She accepted she had a lighter with her but insisted it remained in her pocket throughout. She denied making threats to kill at the scene. She said Mr Morris and his neighbours were conspiring against her. She denied telling a custody officer that she wanted to kill him.

She continued to give this account when seen by the author of the probation report and a consultant psychiatrist. The probation officer described a significant level of premeditation. However, Cindy Bradbury vehemently denied any intention to set fire to the property, stating her only intention was to frighten her neighbours. Unfortunately neither the author of the report nor Dr Huckle, the consultant psychiatrist, appear to have challenged this account, which might have been expected given her plea of guilty to attempted arson with intention to endanger life. The probation officer described the offender as contrite. However, she did not consider what she had done as "any big deal". She told the probation officer that she had “little other option” but to do what she did.

Rather surprisingly in our view given the offender’s history and her attitude, the offender was assessed as being at low to medium risk of reoffending but she was also assessed as posing “a high risk of harm to Mr and Mrs Morris”.

Dr Huckle found that Cindy Bradbury was suffering from a depressive illness and alcohol dependence. He too suggested that on the historical, clinical and risk assessment scale she would be considered a low risk of violent reoffending. Cindy Bradbury expressed to him her regret at the effect of her behaviour upon her family, particularly her son. She also told him that she had found her time in custody very difficult. She had self-harmed on a large number of occasions and presented as a suicide risk. Dr Huckle commented that her depression was apparently responding to treatment in prison together with proper doses of medication.

The doctor noted that the offence was committed one week after release from custody and was in the context of her having drunk alcohol and taken a high dose of Diazepam. He found no evidence of a serious personality disorder or pyromania. He noted the numerous letters of support provided for her, as have we. He was of the opinion that the offence was very much out of character and therefore a term of imprisonment for public protection was not indicated.

Her Majesty's Attorney General has put before us a number of aggravating factors:

The following mitigating factors appear to Her Majesty's Attorney General to have been present. First, the offender pleaded guilty, albeit belatedly. She may not have made full admissions either in interview or when interviewed by the probation officer or the psychiatrist but she accepted some responsibility. Second, the offender is an intelligent woman who was of previous good character. (Mr Evans on her behalf invited the court to conclude that she was of positively good character). This was supported by the next mitigating factor, she has been involved in public service both as a nurse and a foster mother. A number of people, former colleagues in the nursing profession, friends, neighbours and members of her family, have provided glowing references for her. Her 17-year-old son, whom she has raised single-handed, has written in moving terms about his relationship with his mother. He is obviously extremely close to her. He has now been forced to leave his home and he lives with his grandmother. Further, the offender was suffering from depression and alcohol dependency at the time of the offence.

Despite initial problems when first remanded in custody she is now making good progress and she is making efforts to address her problems. As Mr Evans put it, the woman who appeared before His Honour Judge Richards was a very different woman from the woman who attacked Mr Morris and the house in which he was living. She is now properly medicated. At the time of the offence she had been prescribed Diazepam of which she was taking too large a quantity, and she combined the drugs with alcohol. Mr Evans invited us to conclude that this might well have clouded her judgment. Mr Evans was also anxious to remind the court that the offence was an attempt to commit the offence of arson, rather than the complete offence. No damage was actually caused to the property and no injury in fact caused to Mr Morris. However, as Mr Evans was forced to concede, that was no thanks to Cindy Bradbury. It was thanks to the efforts of Mr Morris, his neighbours and the fact the police had had the good sense to fit a panic alarm. Cindy Bradbury did everything she could to set light to the property and disturbingly to set light to Mr Morris himself. As far as the background campaign of alleged harassment is concerned Mr Evans was anxious to assure the court that the offender insists there is another side to this story as is so often the case in a neighbour dispute.

Mr Evans invited the court to note the ways in which the offender herself has suffered as a result of her behaviour. She has lost care of her son and her daily contact with him which for her is a significant loss. She will never be allowed to foster children in the future, which she has done with some success in the past. She may not be able to return to the nursing profession.

Mr Evans conceded that neither he nor the offender expected a sentence as low as two years' imprisonment. However, without placing too much emphasis on the question of double jeopardy, he did seek to argue that we should take into account the fact that a sentence of two years has raised her hopes. She has made plans and any plans will be dashed if this court intervenes to any great extent. He frankly accepted the court is bound to intervene to some extent. He did not, therefore, seek to contradict Mr Atkinson's assertions that this sentence was unduly lenient. It failed to take proper account of the aggravating features of the case and the guideline authorities. In particular, it failed adequately to reflect the offender's intention to endanger life and her conduct in targeting an elderly couple in a premeditated revenge attack which was only narrowly prevented.

We agree with counsels’ submissions. We have no doubt that this sentence was unduly lenient. The judge approached this difficult sentencing exercise with conspicuous care and fairness, and said he wished to exercise a degree of mercy, but with respect to him in our view he has placed too much weight on the offender's problems and achievements and not enough weight on the serious nature of the offence. To set the level of sentence at 30 months' imprisonment following a contested trial, as the judge did, is in our judgment significantly to underestimate the gravity of what the offender did and what the offender intended.

Whatever criticisms Miss Bradbury or her friends and family may make of Mr Morris' part in this unfortunate dispute, the fact is the Morrises did not stay around in Granville Close to cause Miss Bradbury offence. They left the area. Miss Bradbury, as an intelligent woman, knew full well that the court had ordered her to stay away from them. Yet when she saw Mr Morris she deliberately followed him to discover where he lived. Her judgment was not clouded to the extent that she failed to attempt to disguise her features, nor was she so affected by drugs or drink to the extent she was not able to drive her car, track the Morrises down and follow them to their home. It is clear that Miss Bradbury planned her revenge with considerable care. She knew there were at least two people in the house, that people lived in the houses either side, that some of them were perhaps getting ready for bed, that children were possibly asleep in their beds; yet still she tried to set light to a terraced house. When disturbed in the act she doused Mr Morris with petrol and she attempted to set light to him, whatever her later denials. She might well have succeeded in this dreadful attack had neighbours not come to Mr Morris' defence and had the police not arrived promptly. Her intentions, we fear, were absolutely plain: She intended to endanger his life and lives of others. That puts this case in a very serious category.

A number of decisions have been put before us upon which we need not dwell because Mr Evans does not contest Mr Atkinson's proposition that in normal circumstances the court would expect a sentence in the region of eight to ten years following a contested trial for an offence of arson with intent to endanger life. Mr Evans argued, however, that sentencing is an art not a science. Albeit there are guidelines for sentencing judges every judge must do justice as best he can. He must exercise his judgment to sentence on the particular facts of the offence and the offender. Mr Evans invited the court to make proper allowance for the fact that this judge, a very experienced judge, decided he wished to exercise a degree of mercy.

We have borne Mr Evans' eloquent, sensible, and frank submissions very much in mind. We have borne in mind that fortunately the offender was prevented from completing the offence of arson (although we note the reason was not that the offender gave up her attempt). However, the fact that the offence was not completed is balanced very much by the fact that the offender admitted intending to endanger life. We are driven to the conclusion that a sentence in the region of at least six to seven years would have been appropriate following a plea of not guilty. Given the offender's one-sixth reduction, as determined by the judge for her plea of guilty and her powerful mitigation, as it seems to us, the very least sentence that we can impose in this court is one of five years' imprisonment.

Accordingly, having given Her Majesty's Attorney General leave to refer the sentence, we quash the sentence of two years' imprisonment and we substitute for it a sentence of five years' imprisonment.