Payne, R. v

In sentencing an offender aged 15 to 17 under an adult guideline, the reduction for youth is a matter of judicial discretion. The broad range of one half to two thirds of the adult sentence is a guide only and must not be applied mechanically. The offender’s emotional and developmental age and maturity are at least as important as chronological age.

An appellate court will not interfere where the sentencing judge has correctly identified the guideline, balanced aggravating and mitigating features, and imposed a sentence within the appropriate range. Serious aggravating features, including offending while on bail, may justify an increase from the guideline starting point.

The appellant pleaded guilty in Cardiff Youth Court, shortly after his eighteenth birthday, to three offences of supplying Class A drugs and two offences of possessing Class A drugs with intent to supply. All offending occurred when he was 17 and involved a county-lines drug supply operation.

He was committed to Cardiff Crown Court and received concurrent terms of two years and eight months’ detention in a young offender institution. The sentencing judge treated the offences as category 3 significant-role offending, increased the notional sentence after trial to reflect aggravation, including the final two offences having been committed while on bail, and then reduced it for youth and guilty pleas.

He appealed on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive, principally because of his age at the time of offending.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentence was within the appropriate range and was not manifestly excessive.

2. The judge correctly identified the applicable guideline starting point. She was entitled to increase the notional sentence after trial from four and a half to five years after balancing aggravating and mitigating features. The appellant had committed five offences, and the final two were committed while he was on bail. That was an obvious and serious aggravating feature.

3. The reduction for an offender’s youth was discretionary. The relevant guideline gave only a broad indication that an offender aged 15 to 17 might receive between one half and two thirds of the adult sentence. The reduction depended not merely on chronological age but also on emotional and developmental age and maturity.

4. The judge addressed youth at the correct stage of the sentencing exercise. A 20 per cent reduction for an offender who was close to his eighteenth birthday during the latter part of the offending was not manifestly insufficient. The gravity of the offending also justified the substantial increase from the appellant’s previous custodial sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against sentence: [2019] EWCA Crim 2219.
• Crown Court at Cardiff: on 24 July 2018 imposed concurrent terms of two years and eight months’ detention in a young offender institution after committal from the Youth Court.
• Cardiff Youth Court: on 10 April 2018 accepted guilty pleas and committed the appellant to the Crown Court for sentence.