Cartwright, R v

When sentencing a child or young person, the court must take an individualised approach which gives proper weight to rehabilitation, welfare, maturity and the causes of offending. Custody remains a last resort. However, those considerations cannot justify a non-custodial sentence where the gravity of violent knife offending requires significant detention. The seriousness of the offending, the force used, the offender’s awareness, maturity and proximity to adulthood must be assessed alongside prospects of rehabilitation. The guideline comparison with an adult sentence is a broad guide, not a mechanistic calculation.

The Attorney General referred, under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, a sentence said to be unduly lenient.

At Manchester Crown Square Crown Court, the offender, then 17, pleaded guilty to wounding with intent after using a machete to inflict a deep and permanently consequential wound on another youth. He also pleaded guilty to threatening another youth with a bladed article and assault by beating. The sentencing judge imposed a 24-month youth rehabilitation order with intensive supervision, curfew and exclusion requirements.

The court had to decide whether that non-custodial disposal adequately reflected the seriousness of the offending while applying the sentencing principles for children and young people.

1. The reference was allowed. The youth rehabilitation order imposed for the wounding offence was unduly lenient and was quashed.

2. The court accepted that sentencing a young offender requires an individualised approach. Rehabilitation, welfare, developmental maturity, peer influence and the effect of a sentence are important. Custody is a measure of last resort. The indication that a sentence for a 15- to 17-year-old may broadly fall between one half and two thirds of the adult sentence is only a rough guide and must not be applied mechanically.

3. Those principles did not justify a community sentence in this case. The offence was at least a most serious category 2 adult wounding offence and could properly be categorised at the higher level. The offender carried a fearsome machete in public, initiated violence, pursued the victims, repeatedly swung the weapon and caused a serious wound which could easily have been far worse. His voluntary intoxication by alcohol and a Class A drug aggravated the offending.

4. The court gave proper weight to the offender’s previous good character, remorse, supportive family, favourable reports, peer pressure and prospects of rehabilitation. It also recognised that the offending was out of character. But he was close to adulthood, was not shown to be less mature than others of his age, and the available mitigation carried limited weight against the exceptional seriousness of the conduct.

5. A significant custodial sentence was therefore required. Reflecting the offender’s age, his previous remand, his period at liberty after sentence and substantial compliance with the order, the court imposed three years’ detention under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. No separate penalty was imposed on the remaining counts. The term took effect upon surrender or apprehension, with remand time to count towards it.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): allowed the Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and substituted detention for the youth rehabilitation order.

• Crown Court at Manchester Crown Square: imposed a 24-month youth rehabilitation order for wounding with intent, with no separate penalty on the other counts.