C, R. v

When sentencing a young offender to detention and training, the court must assess the overall totality of consecutive terms. A custodial sentence may be justified, and consecutivity may be appropriate for an unrelated offence, yet the selected term can still be excessive when the injuries, an early guilty plea and the offender’s age are properly weighed.

Where that occurs, the appellate court may substitute the next lower permitted detention and training order under Criminal Justice Act 2000, section 101(1), while preserving a consecutive structure.

The appellant, aged 16 at the time of the offence, pleaded guilty at Maidstone Crown Court to assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He and two co-accused assaulted a young man in public. The victim sustained bruising and a haematoma but no fractures.

The Crown Court imposed a 10-month detention and training order, consecutive to an eight-month order already being served for an unrelated offence. The appellant appealed, with leave of the single judge, on the ground that the term was excessive in light of the injuries, his guilty plea and his age.

1. Appeal allowed. The Court of Appeal accepted that the offence was serious. It was a sustained public assault by several intoxicated offenders, involving punches and kicks after the victim was on the ground. The custody threshold was plainly crossed and an immediate detention and training order was justified.

2. The court also accepted that there was no error of principle in directing the sentence to run consecutively to the existing order. The other sentence concerned an unrelated matter, so the consecutive structure was appropriate.

3. Nevertheless, sentencing required consideration of the totality of the aggregate period. The relatively transitory injuries, the appellant’s early guilty plea and his age meant that the selected term was too long. His unfavourable attitudes and behaviour in custody did not displace that conclusion, although his engagement with education was noted.

4. Applying the next lower permitted step under section 101(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2000, the court quashed the sentence under appeal and substituted a four-month detention and training order. It was to run consecutively to the existing eight-month order, producing an overall period of 12 months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — allowed the sentence appeal and substituted a four-month detention and training order: [2009] EWCA Crim 446.
• Crown Court at Maidstone — imposed a 10-month detention and training order consecutive to an eight-month order already being served.