CE, Re

When sentencing a child for grave violence, the court must give proper effect to the offender’s age, exceptional immaturity, learning difficulties, impaired communication and psychiatric vulnerability. Where those matters show that an adult-equivalent sentence has not been reduced sufficiently, the resulting detention may be manifestly excessive and should be reduced.

A sentence of detention in a young offender institution cannot be imposed on an offender who is below the minimum age for that sentence.

The appellant, aged 16 years and three months, pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Canterbury to attempted robbery, causing grievous bodily harm with intent, and possessing an offensive weapon. The Recorder imposed four years’ detention under section 91 of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2001, treating eight years’ imprisonment as the appropriate adult starting point and reducing it to six years for youth before credit for the guilty plea.

The single judge rejected a challenge to the eight-year starting point but granted leave on whether the reduction for youth was sufficient. The appellant relied on extensive evidence of exceptional immaturity, learning and communication difficulties, post-traumatic stress disorder, and prior trauma. The court also considered the legality of the separate six-month young offender institution sentence for the weapon offence.

1. Appeal allowed. The four-year detention sentence for causing grievous bodily harm with intent was manifestly excessive. It was quashed and replaced with detention for three years.

2. The Recorder had been entitled to treat the section 18 offending as very serious. The appellant played a leading role in a violent attack causing permanent injury. The adult starting point of eight years was not challenged before the Full Court.

3. However, the evidence showed that the appellant was exceptionally immature for his age, impressionable, and affected by learning and communication difficulties. The intermediary evidence demonstrated that a trial would have required adaptations ordinarily appropriate for a much younger child. Psychiatric evidence also established post-traumatic stress disorder following serious earlier trauma, which had contributed to alcohol and drug use. A reduction of only 25 per cent from the adult-equivalent sentence gave those matters insufficient weight.

4. The six-month detention in a young offender institution for possessing an offensive weapon was unlawful because the appellant was too young to receive that sentence. The court quashed it and imposed no separate penalty on that count. The concurrent sentence for attempted robbery and the Recorder’s ancillary orders remained in place.

5. The court extended the anonymity protection under section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 to the appeal proceedings while the appellant remained under 18.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal and varied the sentence: [2016] EWCA Crim 2227.
• Crown Court at Canterbury: On 19 August 2016, imposed a total of four years’ detention, including four years for causing grievous bodily harm with intent.