Akonedo, R. v

The sentencing guideline for children and young persons is a rough guide. It must not be applied mechanistically. The extent of any reduction for youth depends on the offender’s age and circumstances at the time of the offence.

An offender who was almost 18 may properly receive materially less allowance for age than a substantially younger child. A sentencing judge may also make a reduction to maintain proper parity with a younger co-offender. A sentence within that approach will not be disturbed unless it is reasonably arguable that it was manifestly excessive.

The applicant pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. When aged 17 and close to his eighteenth birthday, he participated with two co-accused in a violent burglary. One co-accused, who was younger and committed the most serious violence, was sentenced as a youth.

On 10 January 2019, the applicant received five years’ detention in a young offenders’ institution for aggravated burglary, with a concurrent two-year term for assault. Permission to appeal against sentence was refused by the Single Judge. The applicant renewed his application, contending that insufficient allowance had been made for his age and good character, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. The renewed application for permission to appeal against sentence was refused. It was not reasonably arguable that the total sentence of five years’ detention was manifestly excessive.
2. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat the guideline for children and young persons as a rough guide rather than a mechanistic rule. The amount of any age-related reduction depends upon the particular offender and offence. The approach stated in Hashi [2019] EWCA Crim 185 supported that conclusion.
3. The applicant was only three weeks short of 18 when the aggravated burglary was committed. His age did not require the same treatment as that of a much younger offender, such as a 15-year-old. The judge had nevertheless made adequate allowance for age by reducing the post-plea sentence from six to five years to reflect parity with the younger co-accused.
4. The nine-year starting point for this category 1 aggravated burglary was favourable to the applicant in view of the grave violence, the use of a claw hammer and the terror inflicted on the victim. The further reductions for the guilty plea and parity, together with the applicant’s positive good character, yielded a proper sentence.
5. The court also directed correction of the court record sheet: the victim surcharge was £30, not £140.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for permission to appeal against sentence refused. The court upheld the effective total of five years’ detention in a young offenders’ institution.
• Single Judge: permission to appeal against sentence refused.
• Crown Court: on 10 January 2019, following guilty pleas entered on 21 November 2018, imposed five years’ detention for aggravated burglary and a concurrent two-year term for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.