Adan, R. v

Where offences were committed by a person aged under 18, sentencing should start from the sentence appropriate to that person as a child or young person. Reaching 18 before trial or sentence does not ordinarily justify departing from that approach.

Youth normally reduces seriousness compared with a mature adult. Entrenched gang criminality may support findings of dangerousness and the need to protect the public, but it should not unfairly remove the mitigation arising from youth and exposure to harmful influences while young. The guideline indication of broadly one-half to two-thirds of an adult sentence for offenders aged 15 to 17 is flexible. Emotional and developmental maturity are at least as important as chronological age.

The appellant was 17 when he participated in gang-related firearms offending, including the firing of live rounds in a public place, and later controlled heroin and crack cocaine supply lines. He was convicted at Snaresbrook Crown Court of possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life and possessing an imitation firearm with intent to cause fear of violence. He had already pleaded guilty to two conspiracies to supply class A drugs.

On 30 August 2019, the Crown Court imposed an extended determinate sentence of 18 years, comprising 15 years’ custody and a three-year extended licence period. The appellant appealed against sentence, contending that insufficient weight had been given to his age at the time of the offences and that the drugs sentences used an unavailable form of detention.

1. Appeal allowed to a limited extent. The court held that the judge had correctly found the appellant dangerous and was entitled to impose an extended determinate sentence. The seriousness of the firearms and drugs offending, and the need to protect the public, were properly recognised.

2. However, the sentencing exercise should have begun with the sentence appropriate to an offender aged 17 when the offences were committed. The appellant’s attainment of 18 before conviction and sentence, following the adjournment of his trial, did not justify a departure from that starting point.

3. The court accepted that the appellant was mature and had become deeply involved in gang criminality. Those matters were relevant to dangerousness and to the form of sentence required for public protection. They did not, however, remove the usual mitigation for youth in assessing offence seriousness. It could be unfair to deny that mitigation because the young offender displayed attitudes arising from harmful influences encountered while young and impressionable.

4. Applying the flexible guidance for offenders aged 15 to 17, the court concluded that the appropriate total custodial term was roughly two-thirds of the sentence for a mature adult. The adult equivalent was assessed at 18 to 20 years. The 15-year custodial term therefore gave insufficient weight to age and was reduced to 13 years, with the three-year extended licence period retained.

5. The concurrent three-year sentences of detention in a young offender institution for the drugs offences were unlawful because that form of sentence was unavailable to a person aged 17 at conviction. The court substituted concurrent three-year detention sentences under Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, section 91. The concurrent five-year sentence for the imitation-firearm offence remained unchanged.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal to a limited extent and varied the extended determinate sentence: [2020] EWCA Crim 272.
• Crown Court at Snaresbrook: The appellant was convicted on 25 July 2019 of the firearms offences and, on 30 August 2019, received an 18-year extended determinate sentence with concurrent sentences for the remaining offences. The Court of Appeal reduced the custodial term and substituted lawful detention sentences for the drugs offences.