RL, R v

When sentencing very young offenders for exceptionally grave and dangerous offending, the court must place their welfare at the forefront while also protecting the public in the long term. It must assess whether secure detention provides the stability, discipline, supervision and specialist support required, and whether those welfare needs justify a shorter term than the offence would otherwise merit.

A substantial period of detention may remain appropriate where the offending was a determined attempt to set a vulnerable person alight, the offenders understood its wrongfulness, and secure accommodation is presently the setting best able to meet their needs.

R, aged 13, and L, aged 12, pleaded guilty at Canterbury Crown Court to arson, being reckless as to whether life was endangered. They and a 15-year-old co-accused had repeatedly used lighters in an effort to set alight the clothing of a drunk and vulnerable man.

On 10 December 2004, the judge imposed three years’ detention on R and two years’ detention on L under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Court (Sentencing) Act 2000. Both appealed against sentence with leave of the Single Judge. R submitted that his term was excessive; L submitted that detention was wrong in principle or, alternatively, excessive.

The central issue was whether the respective terms properly reflected the gravity of the offence while serving the welfare needs of these very young offenders and protecting the public.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The sentences of three years’ detention for R and two years’ detention for L were upheld.
2. The offending was exceptionally grave. Each appellant had joined a determined effort to set fire to a drunk and incapable victim. They persisted after initial attempts failed and left after believing they had succeeded. The intervention of another youth prevented potentially horrific consequences. Their ages and personal difficulties did not prevent the court from finding that they understood what they were doing and knew it was wrong.
3. A substantial period of detention was therefore inevitable. Taken in isolation, the respective terms could not be criticised, although the appellants’ young ages had materially reduced what might otherwise have been imposed.
4. The court then gave foremost weight to the boys’ welfare, their backgrounds and their need for stability, while recognising that their needs and the long-term protection of society went together. The relevant questions were whether detention best met those needs and whether they justified shorter terms than the seriousness of the offending would otherwise warrant.
5. Secure accommodation was presently the appropriate setting for both appellants. R needed intensive supervision, treatment, guidance, discipline and continuity; his progress in secure accommodation was encouraging. L required constant supervision, structure and boundaries, and there was no identified non-custodial placement which could confidently provide them. Their welfare accordingly supported, rather than reduced, the detention terms.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Dismissed both appeals against sentence and upheld the detention terms.
• Crown Court at Canterbury: On 10 December 2004, imposed three years’ detention on R and two years’ detention on L following their guilty pleas on 19 November 2004.