Okugbeni, R v

A detention and training order must be for one of the periods prescribed by section 101(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. A court cannot impose an unprescribed term merely to ensure that consecutive detention and training orders reach the statutory maximum.

Where consecutive orders would otherwise exceed 24 months, section 101(4) imposes that maximum and section 101(5) treats the excess as remitted. An unlawful detention and training order must be quashed and replaced with a lawful term that reflects the seriousness of the offence and the totality of the existing sentences.

The appellant, then aged 16, was convicted after trial at Inner London Crown Court of possessing ammunition without a firearm certificate, contrary to section 1(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968. He had passed a box containing live ammunition to another person; ammunition was later recovered from that person’s vehicle.

The Crown Court initially imposed an 18-month detention and training order consecutive to a 10-month order already being served for separate offences. On realising that the aggregate exceeded the statutory maximum, the judge purported to resentence the appellant to 14 months consecutively. The appeal challenged the legality and length of that order under section 101 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

1. Appeal allowed to a limited extent. The court quashed the 14-month detention and training order and substituted a 12-month detention and training order.

2. Section 101(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 permits detention and training orders only for specified terms: 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 18 or 24 months. A 14-month order was not among those permitted terms and was therefore unlawful.

3. The original order of 18 months consecutive to the existing 10-month order would have made the appellant subject to detention and training orders totalling 28 months. That exceeded the 24-month limit in section 101(4). Had the judge left that order in place, section 101(5) would have treated the excess four months as remitted. The judge could not instead impose a non-prescribed 14-month term to produce an aggregate of 24 months.

4. The court rejected the suggestion that the sentencing error demonstrated a failure to have proper regard to youth sentencing principles. It nevertheless considered the offence very serious. The appellant knew he was handling ammunition, which had no practical value without a firearm nearby. He committed the offence while on bail and later committed further serious offences while still on bail. A consecutive custodial sentence was therefore justified.

5. A 12-month order was lawful under section 101(1). Together with the existing 10-month order, it produced an aggregate of 22 months, within the statutory maximum. The court considered that the resulting total properly reflected the seriousness of the offending.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2018] EWCA Crim 2638, the court allowed the sentence appeal to the limited extent of quashing the unlawful 14-month detention and training order and substituting a 12-month order.
• Crown Court at Inner London: The appellant was convicted after trial of possessing ammunition without a firearm certificate. An initial 18-month consecutive detention and training order was followed by a purported 14-month consecutive order, which was the sentence under appeal.
• South London Juvenile Court: On 8 September 2017, the appellant received a 10-month detention and training order for affray and threatening behaviour with an offensive weapon. That order was already being served when the Crown Court sentenced him.