Monteiro & Ors, R. v (Rev 1)

Sentencing for knife and offensive-weapon crime must maintain a sharp focus on preventing further offending and reducing the carrying of knives through deterrence and public protection. The existing guidance in R v Povey [2008] EWCA Crim 1261 remained adequate for the Crown Court. Youth Courts must apply it closely, and police cautioning practice should align with sentencing practice.

A previous possession of a bladed article, especially a knife, is a serious aggravating feature of later knife-related offending. When sentencing a child, the court must make an appropriate allowance for chronological age and maturity. A finding of dangerousness may rest on the trial evidence and reliable reports; a psychiatric report is not invariably required. Unjust disparity between co-offenders may require a sentence reduction.

The court heard together a group of sentence appeals and renewed applications concerning serious violence, possession of bladed articles, and threatening with knives. It also reviewed whether the guidance in R v Povey [2008] EWCA Crim 1261 was being followed and whether further guidance was required.

The individual cases concerned: a gang attack involving stabbing; attempted murder by a 13-year-old; threats with a knife by two youths sentenced separately; repeated shop theft and knife possession; threatening with a bladed article followed by dangerous driving; wounding with intent after a fatal confrontation; and a further youth wounding with intent. The central issues were the proper sentencing response to knife crime, dangerousness, youth, disparity and statutory minimum sentences.

1. Guidance. The court held that the Crown Court was following the guidance in R v Povey [2008] EWCA Crim 1261; no further guidance was required pending a Sentencing Council guideline. Youth Courts must apply that guidance closely. In view of knife crime among young people, they must use appropriate sentences, including more severe sentences where necessary, to prevent further offending and reduce knife carriage. Police cautioning guidance should urgently be aligned with Youth Court, Magistrates’ Court and Crown Court sentencing practice.

2. Individual appeals. Gomes-Monteiro’s nine-year sentence for wounding with intent was upheld. His participation in a serious group attack, knowledge that the victim was being stabbed, use of a belt and a prior caution for carrying a flick knife justified the sentence. A previous possession of a knife was a seriously aggravating feature.

3. NT’s dangerousness finding and extended-sentence regime were upheld. The trial evidence, pre-sentence material and secure-home reports provided a sufficient basis; a psychiatric report was not indispensable. However, his age, improved response to treatment and the applicable youth discount meant that the ten-year custodial term was excessive. It was reduced to seven years, with the three-year extension period retained.

4. Smith’s 30-month sentence was reduced to 20 months because the unexplained and unjust disparity with his younger co-offender was material. The original sentence was otherwise deserved. The prosecution’s failure to inform the Youth Court of the sentence imposed on Smith had contributed to the injustice.

5. The court refused the applications of Varey, Shakespeare, RAB and LD. Their respective total sentences properly reflected repeated knife possession, escalation of offending, deliberate use of knives, serious prior records and the gravity of the offences. There was no basis to depart from the six-month statutory minimum under Criminal Justice Act 1988 section 139AA in Shakespeare’s case.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The court determined the grouped sentence appeals and renewed applications. It reduced the sentences of NT and Smith, and otherwise dismissed or refused the challenges.

• Crown Court: Each appellant or applicant had been convicted after trial or sentenced following guilty pleas for the relevant violence, bladed-article or associated offences.

• Magistrates’ and Youth Courts: Some matters had originated in those courts before committal for sentence or trial, and the court considered the different treatment of a co-offender in the Youth Court in Smith’s appeal.