Stokes, R. v

Where an offender passes a significant age threshold between committing an offence and being sentenced, the court should begin with the sentence likely to have been imposed when the offence was committed. It will rarely be appropriate to impose a sentence more severe than the maximum then available, although a sentence at or close to that maximum may be justified.

This approach does not prevent immediate custody for serious offending. The sentence must nevertheless reflect youth and maturity, give effect to mitigation and guilty-plea credit, and be the shortest commensurate with the seriousness of the offending.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Lincoln to an assault contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and affray contrary to section 3 of the Public Order Act 1986. The offences were committed when he was 17. He was sentenced after he had turned 18, following an unexplained delay.

The Recorder imposed 27 months’ imprisonment for the assault and nine months concurrently for the affray. The appellant appealed with leave, contending that the sentence gave inadequate weight to his youth and that it should have been suspended. The central issue was the effect of the age threshold and the applicable children and youth sentencing guidance on the proper custodial term.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The court quashed the 27-month sentence of imprisonment and substituted 12 months’ immediate detention for the assault. The concurrent nine-month detention sentence for affray was undisturbed. The victim surcharge recorded as £170 was also quashed and replaced with the correct sum of £30.

2. The appellant was 17 when he committed the offences but had turned 18 by the date of charge and sentence. Under the Sentencing Council’s Definitive Guideline on Children and Youth Sentencing, where a significant age threshold has been crossed, the starting point is the sentence likely to have been imposed at the date of offending. It will rarely be proper to exceed the maximum then available, while recognising the purposes of adult sentencing.

3. The maximum Youth Court sentence then available was two years’ detention. Although the assault was serious, involved shod feet and caused substantial injury, the victim had made a full recovery. The Recorder had insufficiently reflected the appellant’s age and the former maximum sentence. A term greater than that maximum was inappropriate.

4. Immediate custody remained necessary. The sustained group violence, the serious injury and the associated affray meant that punishment could not properly be achieved by a suspended sentence. Having allowed for mitigation and the late guilty plea, 12 months’ detention was the shortest sentence commensurate with the seriousness of the offending.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal only to the extent of quashing the 27-month sentence of imprisonment and substituting 12 months’ immediate detention.
• Crown Court at Lincoln: On 21 November 2019, imposed 27 months’ imprisonment for the section 20 assault and nine months concurrently for affray following guilty pleas.