B, R v

When sentencing a child or young person for serious violence, a mental disorder linked to the offending is a lower-culpability factor. It may leave the offence in the highest guideline category but should reduce the sentence selected within that category. The age reduction for a 15-to-17-year-old offender is a guide rather than a mechanical calculation, but a substantial reduction from the adult sentence is required.

An extended sentence under Criminal Justice Act 2003 section 226B may remain necessary despite the offender’s youth where the gravity and unpredictability of the violence establish dangerousness.

The appellant, aged 16 when offending, pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Kingston upon Hull to wounding with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and possessing a bladed article. She had carried a knife to school and inflicted life-threatening injuries in a sustained attack on an inclusion-support officer.

The sentencing judge imposed an extended sentence under section 226B of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, comprising seven years’ custody and a five-year extension period. The appeal challenged the custodial term as excessive, principally because of the appellant’s age and severe depressive illness, and challenged the finding of dangerousness.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The seven-year custodial term was manifestly too high and was reduced to five years. The five-year extended licence was upheld. A victim surcharge of £30 was ordered.

2. The court agreed that the section 18 offence properly fell within Category 1 of the Assault Guideline. The life-threatening injuries and sustained attack established greater harm. The weapon and substantial planning established high culpability. The aggravating features could justify a sentence above the 12-year adult starting point.

3. However, the judge had not given sufficient effect at step 1 to the appellant’s mental disorder. A mental disorder linked to the commission of the offence was a lower-culpability factor. It did not prevent the offence remaining in Category 1, but it should have exerted downward pressure when selecting the sentence within the category range. Taking the psychiatric evidence, aggravating factors and mitigation together, the adult post-conviction sentence should have been at or close to 12 years rather than 15 years.

4. The appellant’s age required a significant reduction. The Sentencing Children and Young People Guidelines indicated a broad range of one-half to two-thirds of the adult sentence for offenders aged 15 to 17, although the guidance was not to be applied mechanically. A one-third age reduction from a 12-year adult sentence, followed by the one-third guilty-plea reduction, produced a custodial term of approximately five years.

5. The court rejected the submission that the offence’s isolated and out-of-character nature warranted further reduction. It also upheld dangerousness under section 226B of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The seriousness and unpredictability of the unprovoked violence supported the judge’s assessment of a significant risk of serious harm. The fresh psychiatric evidence did not alter that assessment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2019] EWCA Crim 801, the appeal against sentence was allowed in part. The custodial term was reduced from seven to five years, while the five-year extension period was maintained.
• Crown Court at Kingston upon Hull: On 1 December 2017, the appellant pleaded guilty to wounding with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and possessing a bladed article. On 2 February 2018, the judge imposed a 12-year extended sentence under section 226B of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, comprising seven years’ custody and a five-year extension period.