Attorney-General's Reference No 21 of 2016

A youth offender’s age, immaturity and the serious impact of custody require a substantial reduction from an equivalent adult sentence. That reduction must nevertheless remain proportionate to the offence and its aggravating features. A sentence is unduly lenient where the allowance for youth and mitigation cannot be sustained in light of a life-threatening knife attack, a revenge motive, relevant violent convictions and offending committed shortly after a further court appearance. A different disposal for a younger co-defendant convicted of a lesser offence does not create a parity basis for reducing the principal offender’s sentence.

The offender, aged 16 at the time, was convicted by a jury at Kingston Crown Court of wounding with intent after stabbing a former friend in the abdomen. The wound caused internal bleeding and bowel injury, required emergency surgery and was assessed as life-threatening.

The Crown Court imposed three years and six months’ detention under Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, section 91. The Attorney General sought leave to refer that sentence as unduly lenient under Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 36. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge had allowed an unsustainable reduction for the offender’s youth and mitigation.

1. The court granted leave and allowed the reference. The sentence of three years and six months’ detention was unduly lenient. It was replaced with seven years’ detention.

2. The offence was properly treated as the most serious category of assault for adult-guideline purposes. The victim suffered a life-threatening abdominal wound requiring life-saving surgery. The offender deliberately used a knife in a public place and acted from a revenge motive after the earlier incident that day.

3. The aggravating features included relevant and similar previous violence, the offender’s possession and use of knives, his commission of the offence only hours after a court appearance for other offences, and his washing of clothing and footwear after the stabbing. The court rejected suggestions of planning or sophistication beyond what the evidence established.

4. The offender’s youth required a significant reduction from the sentence appropriate for an adult. The court also took account of his troubled background, some remorse and insight, and the grave effect of a substantial custodial sentence on a young person. The sentencing judge had been entitled not to find dangerousness and had properly exercised the power under section 91.

5. Those mitigating considerations did not justify the scale of the reduction made. The court considered that an adult starting point could not properly have been below 12 years and that the least sustainable youth sentence was seven years. The co-accused’s lesser conviction and different role afforded no relevant parity comparison.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On the Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court granted leave, held the sentence unduly lenient, and substituted seven years’ detention.
• Kingston Crown Court: Following a jury conviction for wounding with intent, the offender was sentenced on 19 January 2016 to three years and six months’ detention under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.