Hashi, R v

When sentencing a young offender who has turned 18 by the sentencing date, the court must still take account of youth and maturity. Maturity develops at different rates and is relevant to culpability and sentence.

The indicative reduction from an adult sentence in the guideline for children and young people is only a rough guide. It must not be applied mechanically. The sentencing judge must assess the individual features of the offence and offender, which may justify a sentence outside that range.

The appellant was 17 when, following an incident at a London café, he used a metal-legged chair to attack Mohamed Hersi and stamped on him. Mr Hersi later died. A jury at the Crown Court at Wood Green acquitted the appellant of murder but convicted him of manslaughter. He received nine years’ detention in a young offender institution.

He appealed against sentence. He contended that the judge had given insufficient weight to his age, immaturity and the guideline for children and young people, particularly its indication that offenders aged 15 to 17 might receive an adult-sentence reduction of about one half to two thirds. The central issue was whether the nine-year sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentence of nine years’ detention was not manifestly excessive.

2. An offender’s youth and maturity remain relevant to sentence after the offender’s 18th birthday. The court accepted that maturity is not acquired automatically at that age and applied the approach stated in R v Clarke [2018] EWCA Crim 185. The sentencing judge had recognised that the appellant’s maturity was below that of an adult and had allowed a substantial reduction from the adult sentence.

3. Paragraph 6.46 of the guideline for children and young people did not entitle the appellant to a reduction of one half to two thirds from the appropriate adult sentence. That range was expressly only a rough guide. Individual features of the offence and offender were paramount, and the judge, having tried the case, was especially well placed to assess the appropriate allowance for youth and immaturity.

4. The judge was entitled to reject the characterisation of the attack as an immature act against a perceived aggressor. The victim was a stranger who had displayed no aggression towards the appellant. The appellant armed himself with a chair, used significant force, and then stamped on the victim’s throat and groin. This was distinguishable from the childish prank which had gone wrong in R v Hobbs and DM [2018] EWCA Crim 1003.

5. The judge had carefully considered the applicable guideline. Given the high culpability and grave violence, a 25 per cent reduction from an adult sentence of 12 years was justified. Indeed, an adult sentence of 13 or 14 years would also have been justified. The court therefore upheld the determinate sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — in [2019] EWCA Crim 185, dismissed the appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Wood Green — on 24 May 2018, acquitted the appellant of murder and convicted him of manslaughter; on 29 June 2018, imposed nine years’ detention in a young offender institution.