Case No: 202500465/A3, 202504310/A3, 202504311/A3
ON APPEAL FROM THE CROWN COURT AT SOUTHWARK
HHJ ROBBINS
T20087266
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: Thursday 18th December
Before :
LADY JUSTICE MAY DBE
MRS JUSTICE McGOWAN DBE
and
MRS JUSTICE EADY DBE
Between :
Rex | |
- and - | |
Jamie Jenkins |
Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,
Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
_________
MS P AHLWALIA appeared on behalf of the Appellant
MS C SUMNALL appeared on behalf of the Crown
_________
J U D G M E N T
(Approved)
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.
Lady Justice May:
Today we handed down judgment in the Criminal Cases Review Commission reference and in two associated appeals from subsequent sentences in the Crown Court: [2025] EWCA Crim 1657. Following that judgment the position now is this: the appellant's IPP sentence, the subject of the Criminal Cases Review Commission reference, has been quashed and replaced with a hospital order with restrictions under sections 37/41 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
We have gone on to allow the necessary extensions of time, granted leave and allowed the appeals against two subsequent sentences passed in the Crown Court, in each case to the extent of removing the orders that the sentences should run consecutively. Otherwise, they remain unchanged but by removal of the order that they run consecutively they commenced on the date on which each was pronounced and are now fully served.
We need to proceed to a short hearing in order to sit as an appeal in the Crown Court against a fourth sentence, passed in the Magistrates' Court on 3 March 2020, of 16 weeks. The magistrates ordered that sentence also to run consecutively to the IPP sentence. For the purposes of this appeal, McGowan J is sitting as the Crown Court judge and Eady J and myself are sitting as District Judges (Magistrates Court) under section 66 of the Courts Act 2003.
MISS AHLUWALIA: Exactly that, as the court of re-hearing absolutely.
LADY JUSTICE MAY: No objection from the prosecution?
MISS SUMNALL: No objection. I think because technically it is a hearing de novo I need to formally open the facts very briefly, complying with the various sections of the Act.
On 23 July 2019, Miss Omar, who is the complainant was working as part of the West London Mental Health Team at a medium secure unit at St. Bernard's Hospital in Southall where at that point the appellant was detained under section 47/49 of the Mental Health Act.
At around 8.00 am she was in the kitchen preparing breakfast for the patients. At some point the service users started to come into the area. Mr Jenkins was one of those. He sat down at a table near the entrance to the kitchen area. Mr Jenkins normally does not have his breakfast that early and did not sit in his usual place. He then shouted: "The doctor is a dickhead and he's a liar." He then said the doctor had said to him: "If there's no incidents for three months I can have unescorted leave", repeating that he was a liar: "I'm going to go back to jail. I have a dentist appointment."
He then became increasingly agitated. He pointed his finger at Miss Omar and she at that point pressed the panic alarm because he was shouting at her: "I never told you to go back to your own country. You're a liar, you're a liar." Other staff members came in and tried to placate him to which he said, and shouting against at Miss Omar: "You're pressing the alarm, you're pressing the alarm, I hate you." He then walked over to the counter unit where she was using a toaster. He picked up a full two litre bottle of milk and threw it at her, striking her on the left side of her cheek. She pressed her panic alarm again. He then started to throw a plastic jug of juice at her, cereal bowls and a box containing dirty knives and forks et-cetera. Luckily none of those items hit her but she did notice later a bruise on her left shin. He then threw further items at her, shouting: "I don't like you. I hate you." He then said to Miss Omar: "Do you want me to jump?" as he tried to climb over the counter but that was too cumbersome to do so. He then threw a large rubbish bin at Miss Omar at that point before other members of the team came in and escorted him into another room.
Those are the facts. My Lady knows the antecedent history of the defendant. Can I assist any further?
LADY JUSTICE MAY: No, thank you very much. Miss Ahluwalia?
MISS AHLUWALIA: My Lady, in terms of sentencing guidelines culpability B, harm category 2. Guilty plea has been entered. Maximum sentence of two years. Only submission in terms of concurrent sentence, 16 weeks and below for the court to consider.
LADY JUSTICE MAY: Thank you very much. I imagine that you are asking formally for an extension of time.
MISS AHLUWALIA: Yes.
LADY JUSTICE MAY: Thank you.
(The judges confer)
LADY JUSTICE MAY:
Miss Sumnall has opened the facts. In short, the appellant Mr Jenkins threw milk, juice, cutlery and plates at a nurse before being restrained. He has pleaded guilty to the offence. The Magistrates' Court originally passed a sentence of 16 weeks having determined that the offence fell into culpability B and harm 2 of the applicable Sentencing Council Guideline. We reach the same conclusion. However, we do not propose to order that the sentence should run consecutively. That being so, the sentence will take effect from 3 March 2020 when it was first pronounced and has now been served. For the avoidance of doubt we have granted the necessary extension of time and allowed the appeal.
As it is a hearing de novo we have heard the case opened and Miss Ahluwalia has made the points on sentence, harm and culpability. We do not interfere with the sentence of 16 weeks but it will run concurrently.
Is there anything else that we need to deal with in order finally to have resolved all of this?
MISS AHLUWALIA: No, thank you, my Lady.
LADY JUSTICE MAY: We have announced the variations to the Crown Court sentences in open court. We have handed down judgment. We have heard the appeal and we have effectively removed the order for the 16 weeks to run consecutively. So everything has been dealt with.
MISS AHLUWALIA: My Lady, yes. In terms of the section 37/41 order, obviously if your clerk can provide that then we will ensure that it is forwarded on to the hospital.
LADY JUSTICE MAY: Yes, thank you both very much. We should not leave without recording our thanks not only to the two of you for your clear and helpful submissions but also to the Criminal Appeal Office lawyer for being so efficient in getting on with it and listing this hearing.
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 1JE
Tel No: 020 7404 1400
Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk