Boateng, R v

When sentencing an offender who was a child when the offence was committed, the court should start with the sentence appropriate at that date. It must give proper weight to youth, immaturity, the greater prospect of reform and the priority of rehabilitation. Where a significant age threshold has since been passed, it will rarely be appropriate to impose a sentence more severe than the maximum available when the offence was committed.

The totality principle requires the overall sentence for multiple offences to be just and proportionate to the whole course of offending. Concurrent and consecutive terms must be structured to reflect relative seriousness without double counting closely connected offending.

The appellant, aged 17 when he offended, pleaded guilty to two assaults by beating, two offences of committing an offence with intent to commit a sexual offence, and one sexual assault. The first four offences involved attacks on two lone women within about 30 minutes. The fifth offence occurred nine days later.

At Snaresbrook Crown Court, the appellant received a total of three years and four months’ detention in a young offender institution. He appealed against sentence with permission from the single judge. The central issues were whether sufficient weight had been given to his youth and immaturity, and whether the consecutive terms complied with the totality principle.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to the appellant’s age and lack of maturity. The pre-sentence report showed that immaturity contributed to the offending. Youth may affect decision-making, risk-taking and appreciation of the harm caused to victims.

2. The court should begin with the sentence likely to have been imposed when the offences were committed. Under the Children and Young Persons Sentencing Guideline, passing a significant age threshold will rarely justify a sentence exceeding the maximum available at the date of offending. For offenders aged 15 to 17, a sentence broadly within one half to two thirds of the appropriate adult sentence may be suitable.

3. The seriousness and frightening effect of the offences against the two lone victims remained material. Counts 2 and 4 were the most serious. However, counts 1 to 4 formed a closely connected course of offending within 30 minutes. The totality principle required an overall sentence that was just and proportionate.

4. The court quashed the consecutive 18-month term on count 4 and substituted an 18-month concurrent term. It substituted concurrent two-month terms on counts 1 and 3, and a consecutive two-month term on count 5. The total sentence was therefore reduced to 20 months’ detention in a young offender institution, with credit for 121 days spent on remand.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal in part and substituted a total sentence of 20 months’ detention in a young offender institution.

• Crown Court at Snaresbrook: On 31 July 2019, sentenced the appellant following guilty pleas to a total of three years and four months’ detention in a young offender institution.