JT, R v

Sentencing a child or young person requires an individual, child-focused assessment. Offence seriousness is the starting point, but the court must give proper weight to immaturity, personal circumstances, rehabilitation, the consequences of being a looked-after child, and delay outside the young person’s control. The Sentencing Council’s broad indication of one-half to two-thirds of the comparable adult sentence must not be applied mechanically. In an exceptional case of low culpability, demonstrated rehabilitation and substantial delay, even a serious reckless arson offence need not require immediate custody. A youth rehabilitation order with intensive supervision may instead be proportionate.

The appellant, aged 15 when the offence was committed, pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Sheffield to arson reckless as to whether life would be endangered. He deliberately lit newspapers on a bus and left without ensuring that the fire had gone out. The bus was destroyed and the fire caused extensive damage to the bus station.

Nearly two years after the offence, the Crown Court imposed three years’ detention under section 91. The appellant appealed against sentence. The central issue was whether the judge had properly applied the guideline for sentencing children and young people, including the appellant’s low culpability, troubled background, progress in rehabilitation and delay in the proceedings.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentence of three years’ detention was quashed and replaced by an 18-month youth rehabilitation order with an intensive supervision and surveillance programme.
2. The judge adopted too high an adult starting point. Although reckless arson may sometimes approach the culpability of intentional arson, this was not such a case. The appellant’s conduct was impulsive and of very low culpability, despite the grave and expensive consequences. A comparable adult sentence after trial would not have exceeded six years’ imprisonment.
3. The judge also applied the youth sentencing guideline inadequately. The exercise had to be individualistic and focused on the child, with rehabilitation where possible. It required account of the appellant’s immaturity, ADHD symptoms, status as a looked-after child, and the risk that custody would undo his substantial progress. A simple reduction to two-thirds of an adult sentence did not comply with the guideline. For this 15-year-old, there was no proper basis to choose two-thirds rather than the lower broad indication of one-half.
4. The court held that a custodial sentence after trial would have been three years’ detention and that the full guilty-plea credit reduced the maximum appropriate custodial term to two years. The extensive delay was also a significant mitigating factor. It was largely unexplained and outside the appellant’s control, and 22 months was especially significant in the life of an immature and troubled teenager.
5. Although immediate custody will often be appropriate for serious arson by a 15-year-old, the combination of low culpability, rehabilitation, personal circumstances and delay made this an unusual and exceptional case. The proportionate response was the community-based programme proposed in the pre-sentence report: electronically monitored curfew for three months, 100 hours’ unpaid work, 16 junior attendance-centre sessions, and 18 months’ supervision.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Allowed the appeal against sentence, quashed the three-year detention order and substituted a youth rehabilitation order: [2018] EWCA Crim 1942.
• Crown Court at Sheffield — Following a guilty plea, imposed three years’ detention on 12 March 2018. No citation for that decision was stated in the judgment.