R V. Hoyle's Sentencing Of Offenders

In R v Hoyle (No 2), the Court considers the sentencing of the offender, Arthur Hoyle, who was found guilty of an act of indecency without consent and sexual intercourse without consent. While determining an appropriate sentence, the Court had reference to three medical reports tendered on behalf of the offender, the authors of which each had “a different speciality.” The medical history of the offender and the subsequent diagnosis provided by the medical reports presented a unique challenge to the Court’s ability to appropriately sentence the offender. Substantial legal psychological issues, including the applicability of neuropsychological analysis to criminal cases and the impact of cognitive deficiencies on sexual offenders, are considered
The Court turned to the expertise of three specialists to obtain an answer. The first report was conducted by Dr Clout, a clinical psychologist. In her executive summary, Dr Clout noted that the offender “described symptoms consistent with the diagnosis of a Major Depressive Disorder during the investigation… but he no longer meets the appropriate diagnostic criteria.” Dr Clout also conducted psychometric testing, which concluded that the offender was “at a low risk of reoffending generally.” However, Dr Clout was not provided with a complete medical history for the offender and as a result, she concluded that “there is no evidence Mr Hoyle has ever experienced any intellectual impairment.” This is in stark contrast to the assessment of Dr Lonie, who recorded the full history of the offender’s brain injuries. She also found indications of brain disease, which “included an impairment of the offender’s executive function… and a reduced ability to learn… suggestive of co-morbid disease processes.” Significantly, Dr Lonie noted that “alternations in social cognition may give rise to inappropriate behaviour in social contexts… may be more difficult… to regulate behaviour… social cognition is typically impaired.” While this finding may have impacted the sentencing of the offender, the Court found it difficult to understand whether Dr Leonie was “suggesting that the offender’s brain disease, which presumably pre-dated the offences, had any effect on the commission of the offences.” The Court disregarded the suggestion that the offender’s actions were a result of cognitive impairment, and determined that the report was only relevant to the offender’s capacity to cope with imprisonment. A similar result occurred with the third report, conducted by physician Dr Rosenfeld. Dr Rosenfeld conducted CT and MRI brain scanning, identifying brain disease