Attorney General Reference Nos 54, 55 & 56 of 2004

For a sustained and grave group assault causing serious physical and psychological harm, youth, guilty pleas and personal mitigation may reduce sentence but cannot displace the need for a custodial sentence. In an Attorney General reference, the Court of Appeal must also allow for the second sentencing process and for the offenders’ liberty since the original sentence. Those considerations can justify a substantial reduction from the sentence that should originally have been imposed.

The Attorney General obtained leave under Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 36, to refer as unduly lenient the sentences imposed on three young offenders.

Each had pleaded guilty to intentionally causing grievous bodily harm after jointly assaulting a 14-year-old boy, breaking his elbow and throwing him into a canal. The Recorder imposed community-based orders and electronically monitored curfews. The common question was whether those non-custodial sentences were unduly lenient and, if so, what substituted sentences were appropriate.

1. The references succeeded. The community-based sentences were unduly lenient. The offence was exceptionally grave: it was a persistent, unprovoked three-against-one attack upon a 14-year-old, involving varied violence, threats to kill, serious injury and the victim’s being thrown into a canal. The victim also required psychological treatment.
2. The offenders’ youth, guilty pleas and individual personal mitigation were material. They did not justify a non-custodial penalty for conduct of this seriousness. No distinction should be drawn between the offenders’ culpability for sentencing purposes.
3. The appropriate sentence at first instance for each offender would have been three years’ detention under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. On an Attorney General reference, however, the court had to reflect double jeopardy and the further consequence of imprisoning offenders who had remained at liberty after sentence. A further reduction was therefore required.
4. Detention and Training Orders were substituted: 24 months for Stechman and Griffin, and 12 months for Walton because he had already spent seven months in custody that would not count towards his sentence. The orders were to begin when the offenders surrendered to custody, which the court directed should occur at 1 pm.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Attorney General’s references under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 allowed. The community-based sentences imposed at Inner London Crown Court were held unduly lenient and were replaced by detention and training orders.
• Inner London Crown Court: On 16 April 2004, the Recorder imposed community punishment and rehabilitation orders, or a community rehabilitation order, with electronically monitored curfews.