Balogun, R. v

An offender’s eighteenth birthday is not a sentencing cliff edge. When sentencing a young adult, the court must assess the offender’s actual maturity, insight and understanding. Youth and immaturity may reduce culpability even after the offender has turned 18.

For multiple serious offences, the court must apply totality, give proper weight to relevant personal mitigation, and reflect credit for guilty pleas. A sentence based principally on mature-adult culpability may be excessive where the evidence shows significant comparative immaturity.

The appellant, aged 18 when the offences were committed, was convicted of three rapes and pleaded guilty to four further rapes and to distributing indecent photographs of a child. The victims were aged between 13 and 16.

At Wood Green Crown Court on 15 December 2017, he received an extended determinate sentence under Criminal Justice Act 2003, comprising 21 years’ detention and an eight-year extension period. Concurrent sentences were imposed for the remaining offences.

He appealed the custodial term, contending that insufficient weight had been given to his youth, immaturity and disrupted upbringing. He also challenged the treatment of victim personal statements and, belatedly, the extension period.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The court reduced the custodial term from 21 years to 18 years. It left the eight-year extension period and all concurrent sentences unchanged.
2. The appellant’s dangerousness and the appropriateness of an extended determinate sentence were not challenged. The judge’s categorisation of the individual rape offences was also accepted. The issue was whether the resulting overall custodial term was just and proportionate.
3. An offender’s attainment of 18 does not end the relevance of youth or immaturity in sentencing. The court applied the principles stated in R v Peters, [2005] 2 Cr App R(S) 101, and Attorney-General’s Reference R v Clarke, [2018] 1 Cr App R(S) 52. Actual maturity, insight and understanding must be assessed. A young adult is not automatically invested with the self-control and understanding of a fully mature adult.
4. The pre-sentence report provided evidence of disrupted upbringing, instability, comparative immaturity, limited appreciation of the seriousness of the offending, and limited appreciation of its consequences for the victims. Those matters did not reduce the offending to child-like conduct, but they were important mitigation. The sentencing judge’s notional post-trial total of 24 years gave them insufficient weight and was excessive.
5. Applying totality, greater weight to youth and comparative immaturity, and the intended credit for the late guilty pleas, the proper custodial term was 18 years. The court rejected the complaint concerning victim personal statements. The judge had been entitled to state emphatically that the victims were not at fault, and there was no basis to infer that inappropriate weight had affected sentence.
6. Leave to add a late challenge to the extension period was refused. There was no good reason for the delay and no arguable basis to interfere. The court quashed the lead extended sentence and substituted an extended sentence of 18 years’ detention in a young offender institution with an eight-year extension period.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — allowed the sentence appeal in part and substituted an extended sentence comprising 18 years’ detention and an eight-year extension period: [2018] EWCA Crim 2933.
• Crown Court at Wood Green — on 15 December 2017 imposed an extended determinate sentence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, comprising 21 years’ detention and an eight-year extension period.