Jordan, R. v

When sentencing an offender aged 15 to 17, the court must assess maturity as well as chronological age. The youth sentencing guideline permits a starting point below that for an adult, but it does not require a fixed reduction. The appropriate reduction diminishes as the offender approaches 18 and where maturity or criminal sophistication justifies a sentence nearer the adult level. A trial judge who has observed the offender may make that assessment from the evidence and conduct at trial. In an exceptional case, a sentence close to the adult sentence may be justified. An appellate court will not intervene merely because that approach is unusual where the judge gave adequate reasons and the overall sentence is not manifestly excessive.

The three appellants were convicted at Sheffield Crown Court of two offences of wounding with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Each received concurrent 15-year sentences for the attacks on two victims. Jordan and Alquebeiai, who were under 18 when sentenced, were sentenced under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

They appealed with permission, contending principally that the judge had wrongly assessed their relative roles, failed to give proper mitigation for youth and imposed manifestly excessive sentences. The central issue was whether the judge could impose sentences near the adult level after finding that the appellants were mature and highly culpable despite their ages.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The offences were properly placed in category 1. For an adult offender, the applicable guideline starting point was 12 years' custody and the range was 9 to 16 years for a single offence. Given the sustained, premeditated and exceptionally grave violence, a sentence of 15 or 16 years would have been appropriate for an adult absent mitigation.
2. The youth sentencing guideline required the judge to consider maturity as well as chronological age. It envisaged that an offender aged 15, 16 or 17 might receive a starting point of one half to three quarters of the adult starting point, depending on maturity. The nearer the offender was to 18, and the greater the maturity or criminal sophistication, the nearer the sentence could be to the adult sentence. Proper regard also had to be given to parity when sentencing more than one offender.
3. The sentencing judge, having conducted the trial, was better placed than the appellate court to assess each appellant's maturity and culpability. The guideline did not compel a mechanical reduction for youth. The judge had given reasons for finding that the appellants were sufficiently mature that no reduction in the starting point was required. Although that was unusual, it was permissible on the exceptional facts.
4. The judge was entitled to treat Jordan's conduct shown on CCTV as relevant to his leading role and to balance it against his lack of previous convictions. There was no error in the assessment that the three appellants were equally culpable.
5. The sentencing remarks did not leave age wholly out of account. The final 15-year terms reflected the appellants' youth when the overall sentences were fixed for two separate and gravely injured victims. Viewed as a whole, the sentences were severe but not manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal therefore declined to interfere.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): in [2013] EWCA Crim 1147, dismissed the three appeals against sentence.
• Crown Court at Sheffield: on 6 July 2012 convicted the appellants of two counts of wounding with intent; on 30 July 2012 imposed concurrent 15-year sentences on each count.