Akehurst & Ors, R. v

In sentencing children and young persons, the court must give substantial weight to age, maturity, rehabilitation and the need to avoid a crushing sentence. Those considerations do not prevent a substantial custodial sentence for an offence of exceptional gravity. Serious violence using a shod foot against a defenceless victim may justify a youth sentence based on at least one half of the appropriate adult starting point.

Under section 8 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, remittal to the Youth Court is mandatory unless the Crown Court is satisfied that it would be undesirable. It may properly refuse remittal where the sentencing judge has the full picture and separate sentencing would create unacceptable disparity or injustice between co-defendants.

Two young offenders applied for leave to appeal against sentences imposed at Maidstone Crown Court after guilty pleas arising from a pre-arranged fight. Akehurst, aged 13 at the time, repeatedly punched, kicked and stamped on the victim’s head after the victim fell to the ground. The victim suffered a grave brain injury with lasting consequences. Akehurst received four years’ detention under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

M, aged 14, kicked the defenceless victim twice. He received a youth community order. Akehurst contended that his sentence was manifestly excessive because of his age. M contended that the judge should have remitted him for sentence in the Youth Court under section 8 of the 2000 Act.

1. Both applications for leave to appeal against sentence were dismissed.

2. Akehurst’s sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court accepted the general importance of an individualised approach to youth sentencing, including the offender’s chronological and emotional age, prospects of maturity, rehabilitation, and the need to avoid a crushing sentence. Those considerations had to be balanced against the seriousness of the offence, culpability and harm.

   This offence was exceptionally grave. Akehurst was the ringleader and principal assailant. He used his shod foot as a weapon against a defenceless victim and caused devastating, enduring injury. The court held that an adult starting point would have been about 12 years or more after trial, before other aggravating and mitigating features. A youth starting point of at least one half of that figure was therefore within the proper range. After credit for the guilty plea, four years’ detention was not excessive.

3. Section 8 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 required remittal of M to the Youth Court unless the Crown Court was satisfied that remittal would be undesirable. The judge was entitled to find that condition met. He had sentenced all three participants and therefore had the full factual and sentencing picture. Remittal would also have created a real risk of unacceptable disparity, and injustice, between the co-defendants.

4. The refusal to remit M was well within the judge’s proper sentencing discretion. His youth community order accordingly stood.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed both applications for leave to appeal against sentence.

• Crown Court at Maidstone — on 20 January 2009, sentenced Akehurst to four years’ detention and M to a youth community order following guilty pleas.