VT, R. v (Rev 1)

When sentencing a child or young person, the court must adopt an individualistic approach focused on the offender, rehabilitation and welfare. The young offender is not simply an adult offender whose sentence is reduced to reflect age. The seriousness of the offence remains the starting point, but custody is a last resort and may be imposed only where the offence is so serious that no other sanction is appropriate. An adult guideline may assist in assessing sentence length where custody is unavoidable, but it must not displace the youth-specific approach. A non-custodial sentence for serious knife offending may remain within the proper sentencing range where powerful personal mitigation, a low risk of reoffending and strong prospects of rehabilitation collectively justify it.

VT, aged 15 when he wounded a fellow school pupil with intent, was convicted in the Youth Court and committed to the Crown Court for sentence. His appeal against conviction was dismissed by a Crown Court judge and two magistrates. The Crown Court imposed a youth rehabilitation order with supervision, activity and programme requirements.

The Attorney General referred the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, contending that the sentencing judge had wrongly proceeded on the basis that a compass, rather than a knife, had been used and that the offence required detention and training. The central issue was whether, on the correct factual basis, the non-custodial sentence was unduly lenient.

1. Reference refused. The sentence remained a youth rehabilitation order. The court accepted that the sentencing judge had erred in treating the weapon as a compass. The wound was inconsistent with that finding, and the error understated both the weapon’s dangerousness and the significance of VT’s explanation for possessing it.
2. The judge had nevertheless correctly applied the Sentencing Council’s guideline for children and young people. Sentencing must be individualistic and focused on the child, rather than offence-focused. Rehabilitation should be prioritised where possible, and the likely positive and negative effects of sentence on the child must be considered. Custody is a last resort and is available only where the offence is so serious that no other sanction is appropriate. A child is not an adult offender whose sentence is merely adjusted downwards for age.
3. The offence was plainly serious: VT led a group attack, used a knife to inflict a serious wound with intent to cause really serious injury, and the attack was filmed. However, the court was entitled to attach substantial weight to the powerful mitigation. VT was 15 at the time, had no previous or subsequent offending, had spent almost a year awaiting charge, had accepted responsibility and was genuinely remorseful, and had strong family, educational and rehabilitative prospects. The judge had an ample basis for concluding that VT would not offend again and would engage with rehabilitation.
4. Although a custodial sentence would have been open to the judge, the question was whether the non-custodial sentence fell within the proper range. By a narrow margin, it did. The application for leave to refer was therefore refused and the sentence remained unchanged.

• Youth Court: VT was convicted and the case was committed to the Crown Court for sentence under section 3B of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.
• Crown Court: The appeal against conviction was dismissed by a judge and two magistrates. A youth rehabilitation order was imposed.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On the Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, leave to refer was refused and the sentence remained in force.