Arbri Baja was convicted of rape in 2023 and sentenced by the court to a hospital order, under s37 of the Mental Health Act 1983, apparently unrestricted under s41 which I find unusual. Perhaps it’s just incomplete media coverage as I would normally suspect an offence like rape to attract restrictions under s41.
Earlier this month, his case appeared before the Criminal Court of Appeal, under the unduly lenient provisions.
It was successfully argued before the court his sentence of hospital, not prison was unduly lenient and the court agreed. I’m desperately trying to find a written judgment from the justices to see more detail and a full explanation and I may return to update this post when I find it, but there is enough within the media coverage to provoke my interest and a few questions.
CRIMINAL SENTENCING
By now, regular blog readers will be familiar with the process for mentally ill defendants in court: where they are so unwell they require hospital treatment, the court has a number of options before it whether or not the defendant was found guilty of the offence or in circumstances where they were either insane or unfit to plead.
- Convicted
- Imprisonment is still an option (and for murder, it’s mandatory) – there are prison in-reach services for prisoners who are mentally ill but not in need of hospitalisation.
- Hospital order (with or without restrictions, as necessary) – this allows for hospital treatment and avoids the use of prison entirely. Patients are discharged from hospital once thought fit (and with restricted patients that includes Ministry of Justice oversight and authority).
- Hybrid order (under section 45A Mental Health Act) – this allows for immediate hospitalisation but it also has a custodial element where someone is given a prison sentence (let’s say 7yrs) and if their hospital treatment concludes before that point (let’s say, after 4yrs) they would serve the remaining (3yr) period in prison.
- Not convicted – unfit or insane
- The hospital order is the main disposal option where some form of detention for public protection is required.
- The court could also grant a absolute discharge or supervision order but those are extremely rare and irrelevant to this post.
MEDICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The first reason this appeal outcome is interesting is because of it substituting hospital for prison. In order for the judge in the original rape sentencing to authorise a s37 hospital order, two doctors must have given medical recommendations to suggest hospital was medically necessary. Depriving someone of treatment thought necessary is an interesting move to say the least and I’m not aware of another example of this.
It also got me thinking about what will happen when the man is moved to prison as a consequence of this appeal court ruling: I can’t help but wonder whether the prison will think “well he was in need of inpatient hospital care and has been moved from there for legal, not medical reasons so we’ll now apply to the MoJ to transfer him back to hospital under s47 MHA“. We know of other cases where patients who were “sectioned” before they were convicted for murder have been taken to prison and immediately “bounced” – quite literally within a couple of hours – back to the hospital despite a sentence of imprisonment. I’ll be interested to see how long Baja stays in prison now he’s sent there.
Finally, I was also wondering about a hybrid order, because this would straddle both worlds: it imposes a sentence of imprisonment (so in this case, for 5yrs) and then sends the defendant to hospital for treatment. If his treatment last 5yrs or longer, he could be released from there; if it doesn’t take that long, he can be transferred back to prison and serve the balance of his sentence. There is caselaw about how trial judges should weigh the considerations about hospital orders or hybrid orders so one might imagine this was considered and rejected because of the case law.
NOTEWORTHY
We should note: Hybrid orders can only be given to defendants who are 21yrs of age and older and the media reporting tells us that Baja is 25yrs old now and the offence was committed in late April 2021, four years ago. I managed to find his date of birth (despite never having been a detective) and he was 21yrs old when the offence took place, so this was an option for both the original court and the appeal court.
All this being the case, I admit to real curiosity to read the appeal court justice’s ruling and learn more about the unduly lenient argument, how they rationalised this and excluded the hyrbid order. If anyone reading this comes across the judgment for which I’ve searched and utterly failed(!), please let me know.
This ruling to impose prison, not hospital was given in early March 2025 – I wonder whether he’s already back in hospital after a prison transfer?!
Winner of the President’s Medal, the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
Winner of the Mind Digital Media Award
All opinions expressed are my own – they do not represent the views of any organisation.
(c) Michael Brown, 2025
I am not a police officer.
I try to keep this blog up to date, but inevitably over time, amendments to the law as well as court rulings and other findings from inquests and complaints processes mean it is difficult to ensure all the articles and pages remain current. Please ensure you check all legal issues in particular and take appropriate professional advice where necessary.
Government legislation website – www.legislation.gov.uk
Mental Health Cop 