Keane, R. v

In sentencing a young offender for serious, pre-planned violent disorder, the court may find that immediate detention is necessary where the offender was a full participant, weapons were carried and the violence caused grave harm. The offender’s age at the time of the offence and personal mitigation must be considered, but they do not preclude custody. An appellate court will not interfere where the sentencing judge has properly accounted for youth and mitigation and the sentence is proportionate to the seriousness of the disorder and the offender’s involvement.

The applicant, aged 18 at the application, was convicted at the Crown Court at Guildford of conspiracy to commit violent disorder. The offence arose from a pre-arranged confrontation between two groups of youths. Weapons, including poles, golf clubs and knives, were carried. One participant was stabbed and sustained life-threatening injuries.

The applicant was aged 16 years and five months when the offence was committed. He was sentenced by His Honour Judge Fraser to ten months’ detention in a youth offenders institution. He sought permission to appeal against sentence on the grounds of his youth and the two-year delay before trial.

1. The application for permission to appeal against sentence was refused. The sentence of ten months’ detention in a youth offenders institution was entirely proper.

2. The sentencing judge had sentenced the applicant by reference to his age at the time of the offence. He had expressly begun with the sentence he would have imposed on a 16-year-old. The applicant’s youth had therefore been taken into account.

3. The offence was a serious, planned confrontation between rival groups. It occurred after dark in a residential area, involved substantial numbers of youths and weapons, and caused serious alarm to residents. A participant was stabbed and suffered life-threatening injuries.

4. The applicant was fully involved in the conspiracy and its lead-up. The court regarded the pre-sentence report as an unreliable guide to sentence because the applicant had not fully admitted his role. The evidence also supported his involvement in retrieving the knife used in the attack.

5. In those circumstances, the judge was entitled to conclude that the custody threshold was passed. He had considered the applicant’s mitigation and references, and was best placed to assess the appropriate sentences for the co-defendants.

6. The sentence was consistent with the sentencing comparison in R v Bowker [2007] EWCA 1608. Neither a suspended sentence nor a youth rehabilitation order was warranted.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — refused permission to appeal against the ten-month sentence.

• Crown Court at Guildford — on 26 October 2015, the applicant was convicted of conspiracy to commit violent disorder; on 27 November 2015, His Honour Judge Fraser imposed ten months’ detention in a youth offenders institution.