S, R v

In sentencing a child for multiple robbery offences, the court must reflect both the seriousness of the offending and the offender’s personal mitigation. Where immediate custody is inevitable, youth, previous good character, remorse, a supportive home and a low assessed risk of reoffending may nevertheless justify reducing the overall term by making sentences concurrent rather than consecutive.

The appellant, aged 15, pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Nottingham to attempted robbery and robbery arising from two group attacks on the same night. He received two eight-month detention and training orders, ordered to run consecutively, making 16 months.

He had no previous convictions. The pre-sentence report recorded remorse, a supportive home, positive conduct at college and a low risk of reoffending. It recommended a referral order. The appeal challenged the aggregate custodial sentence, particularly given his age.

1. Leave to appeal was granted and the appeal was allowed in part. The court held that the offences were serious and unpleasant. They were committed at night by a group, involved violence, threats and the theft of personal property. A custodial sentence was therefore inevitable.

2. The court nevertheless gave substantial weight to the appellant’s age of 15, his lack of previous convictions, his remorse and his otherwise favourable personal circumstances. He came from a decent and supportive home, had been disciplined by his parents, was said to be doing well at college, and was assessed as presenting a low risk of reoffending.

3. The court did not accept that the recommendation for a referral order should be adopted. However, it concluded that the overall sentence could properly be moderated. The appropriate means of doing so was to preserve the eight-month detention and training order imposed for each count, but order the two terms to run concurrently.

4. The aggregate sentence was consequently reduced from 16 months to eight months’ detention and training. A representation order was made for the appellant’s advocate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave granted and sentence appeal allowed in part. The consecutive detention and training orders were ordered to run concurrently.
• Crown Court at Nottingham: On 3 October 2011, the appellant pleaded guilty to attempted robbery and robbery. On 24 October 2011, he received two consecutive eight-month detention and training orders.