Karolia & Ors v R

When fixing minimum terms for young offenders convicted of murder, a court must give real weight to age, maturity and rehabilitation. Sentencing Act 2020, Schedule 21 is not a mathematical grid. Its age-based starting points nevertheless provide a useful framework for checking that any discount for youth is proportionate and consistent.

The seriousness of a sustained joint attack involving a knife, multiple victims, grave injuries and public violence may substantially outweigh the mitigation of youth. An intention to cause grievous bodily harm that falls only just short of an intention to kill attracts little, if any, mitigation where the attack is exceptionally brutal.

The Solicitor General referred, under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the sentences imposed on six co-offenders after their convictions for murder. Four were also convicted of attempted murder arising from the same violent incident, and one was additionally convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent.

At the Crown Court in Leeds, the offenders received life sentences or detention at His Majesty’s pleasure with minimum terms between 10 and 21 years. Three offenders had been under 18 when the offences were committed. The reference alleged that the sentencing judge had given excessive weight to youth and had failed adequately to reflect the repeated use of a knife, the joint gang attack, the attempted murder and the seriousness of the intended harm.

The central issue was whether the minimum terms were unduly lenient and, if so, whether the Court should exercise its discretion to increase them.

1. The Attorney General’s reference was allowed. All six minimum terms for murder were unduly lenient. The court granted leave and exercised its discretion to increase them.

2. The court accepted that youth, emotional development and maturity were important mitigating considerations. It followed the sentencing principles in R v Peters [2005] EWCA Crim 2005, R v Clarke and others [2018] EWCA Crim 185 and R v Daniels [2019] EWCA Crim 296. Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020 was not a mathematical formula. Actual maturity remained material, but age-based starting points provided a legitimate check upon the proportionality of any youth discount.

3. The sentencing judge had insufficiently reflected the exceptional seriousness of the offending. The offenders acted jointly in a sustained, public and extremely brutal attack on three victims. At least one knife was repeatedly used. Continued participation in the knife attacks, together with the attempted murder convictions and the resulting harm, were substantial aggravating features.

4. The court proceeded on the basis that the intended harm was grievous bodily harm rather than death. However, the multiple stab wounds, kicks to a prone and helpless victim, and the brutality of the attacks showed an intention to cause really serious harm just short of an intention to kill. That afforded little, if any, mitigation.

5. The court substituted minimum terms of 27 years for Offender 1, 16 years for Offender 2, 21 years for Offender 3, 16 years for Offender 4, 13 years for Offender 5 and 16 years for Offender 6, each less the stated time on remand. The concurrent sentences for the other offences remained unaltered.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) On the Solicitor General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court held that all six minimum terms were unduly lenient, quashed them and substituted higher terms.

• Crown Court in Leeds Kerr J sentenced the six offenders on 30 July 2021 following convictions for murder and, for four offenders, attempted murder arising from the same incident.