Amin, R. v

Where an offender was under 18 when committing an offence but has crossed the age threshold before sentence, the court should begin with the sentence likely to have been imposed at the date of the offence. Adult sentencing purposes must also be taken into account, but that starting point remains a powerful consideration.

Under sections 6.2 and 6.3 of the Sentencing Council’s Children and Young People Definitive Guideline, it will rarely be appropriate to exceed the maximum sentence available when the offence was committed. The seriousness of the offending and the offender’s leading role may justify a sentence at or close to that maximum, but not necessarily one above it.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Isleworth of violent disorder arising from a planned and sustained group attack at a private party. The sentencing judge found that he had arranged and directed the violence, that knives were used, and that the offending fell within the most serious categories of culpability and harm.

Although the appellant was 18 when sentenced, he had been 17 years and two months old when the offence was committed. He received four years’ detention in a young offender institution. He appealed on the ground that the judge had failed to use the sentence available at the offence date as the required starting point under the Children and Young People Definitive Guideline.

1. Appeal allowed. The sentencing judge failed to take account of the sentence that could have been imposed when the appellant committed the offence. That was a material error because it was the required starting point under sections 6.2 and 6.3 of the Sentencing Council’s Children and Young People Definitive Guideline.

2. Where an offender was under 18 at the offence date but is over 18 when convicted or sentenced, culpability remains to be assessed by reference to the offender’s age at the time of the offence. The purposes of adult sentencing in Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 142(1), must nevertheless be taken into account after the offender reaches 18. The youth sentence remains a powerful starting point, although it is not the sole determinant.

3. The court followed the guidance reflected in R v Ghafoor [2002] EWCA Crim 1857, R v Bowker [2007] EWCA Crim 1608, and R v Y [2013] EWCA Crim 1175. A court should rarely impose a sentence more severe than the maximum available when the offence was committed, though a sentence at or near that maximum may be justified.

4. The appellant’s leadership of a premeditated, knife-equipped and seriously harmful attack justified the maximum sentence then available. His age of 17 years and two months meant that the appropriate sentence was 24 months’ detention. The four-year sentence was quashed and replaced by 24 months’ detention in a young offender institution.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted 24 months’ detention in a young offender institution for four years’ detention: [2019] EWCA Crim 1583.
• Single judge: Granted leave to appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Isleworth: Convicted the appellant of violent disorder on 22 March 2019 and sentenced him on 10 May 2019 to four years’ detention in a young offender institution.