DM and SC, R v

For a child convicted of murder, the 12-year starting point under Criminal Justice Act 2003, Schedule 21, paragraph 7 must not be applied mechanically. The sentencer must assess the offender’s age, maturity, impulsivity and susceptibility to negative influences. However, that starting point already makes substantial allowance for youth when compared with the applicable adult starting points.

Any further reduction for particularly young age depends on the individual circumstances and cannot be calculated by an arithmetical discount. A minimum term may properly exceed the starting point where the seriousness and aggravating features of a deliberate knife attack significantly outweigh youth, good character and the absence of an intention to kill.

DM and SC were each aged 14 when they and another youth encountered Saif Abdul-Magid following an earlier confrontation. Both appellants were convicted of his murder after a knife attack in which the victim sustained seven stab wounds, including a fatal neck wound.

His Honour Judge Moss QC, sitting at the Central Criminal Court, imposed detention at Her Majesty’s Pleasure. He specified minimum terms of 14 years and 6 months for DM and 14 years for SC. The appellants appealed by leave of the full court, contending that their minimum terms were manifestly excessive because insufficient weight had been given to their youth and, in SC’s case, previous good character.

The central issue was whether the sentencing judge had made sufficient allowance for the appellants’ age, immaturity and personal mitigation.

1. The appeals were dismissed. Each minimum term was within the range properly open to the sentencing judge and was not manifestly excessive.

2. A minimum term is the punitive part of a life sentence. It reflects the seriousness of the murder and any associated offence. Risk of future offending and safe release are matters for the Parole Board after the minimum term has been served.

3. Under Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the starting point for a murderer aged under 18 is 12 years. The court must still consider the offender’s age and maturity. The starting point nevertheless already gives substantial recognition to youth, particularly when contrasted with the adult starting point for a murder committed using a weapon taken to the scene.

4. The court had to consider developmental and emotional maturity, including capacity to appreciate consequences, impulsivity, inexperience, emotional volatility and negative influences. Neither appellant was shown to be unusually immature, and SC’s historical learning difficulties did not materially diminish his culpability. Peer pressure and a desire not to lose face were relevant, but did not outweigh the seriousness of deliberately taking and using a knife in an expected confrontation.

5. The jury’s rejection of self-defence meant that knife-carrying could not mitigate the offences on the basis that it was for protection. For SC, youth, good character and the absence of intent to kill warranted reductions, but were significantly outweighed by the aggravating features. For DM, the earlier affray against the same victim was both a significant associated offence and an aggravating feature of the murder less than 24 hours later. The six-month difference between the minimum terms was justified.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) In [2019] EWCA Crim 1354, the court dismissed both appeals against minimum terms imposed for murder.
2. Central Criminal Court His Honour Judge Moss QC convicted both appellants of murder and sentenced each to detention at Her Majesty’s Pleasure, with minimum terms of 14 years and 6 months for DM and 14 years for SC.