Baldwin v R.

In sentencing an offender aged 18, youth and maturity remain relevant; attaining 18 does not create a cliff edge. Competing culpability factors must be balanced under the offence-specific guideline. Mental disorder and learning disability may substantially reduce responsibility. The sentencer must assess relevant expert evidence and explain any departure from it. Domestic context does not itself aggravate an offence. Seriousness must be assessed by reference to applicable domestic-abuse factors. Victim impact already reflected in harm must not be counted again as aggravation. For a particularly immature 18-year-old, custody may be a last resort. Failure to apply these principles may make an immediate custodial sentence wrong in principle and manifestly excessive.

The appellant, aged 18 when the offence was committed, pleaded guilty to making threats to kill contrary to section 16 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. Norwich Crown Court sentenced her to 16 months’ detention in a young offender institution. She appealed by leave, arguing that insufficient weight had been given to her age, immaturity and mental health, and that immediate custody was not the only appropriate sentence. The central issues were whether the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive and, if so, what sentence should be substituted.

Appeal allowed. The sentence of 16 months’ detention was wrong in principle and manifestly excessive. It was quashed and replaced with a 12-month community order containing a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement for up to 15 days.

1. Culpability and mental disorder. A visible weapon indicated higher culpability, but the psychiatric evidence indicated that mental disorder and learning disability substantially reduced the appellant’s responsibility. The offence-specific guideline required those competing characteristics to be balanced. A fair assessment could not place culpability in the higher band and would, at the least, place it in the medium band.
2. Expert evidence. The guideline on offenders with mental disorders, developmental disorders or neurological impairments required the sentencer to make an assessment of reduced culpability and state the reasons and extent of any reduction. Expert evidence had to be considered. Although the sentencer retained the ultimate decision and could depart from expert opinion for compelling reasons, none existed here.
3. Domestic context and harm. Domestic abuse seriousness had to be assessed by reference to the applicable aggravating factors in the Overarching Principles, rather than treated as serious in the abstract. No such factor applied on these facts. The victim’s continuing difficulties had already been reflected in the assessment of harm, so treating them again as aggravation was impermissible double counting.
4. Age and maturity. The approach in Clarke and others [2018] EWCA Crim 185 at [5] applied. Turning 18 did not confer full maturity or make youth irrelevant. The principles that custody should be a last resort for those under 18 could carry over to an 18-year-old who was particularly immature.
5. Substituted sentence. Immediate custody, and a suspended custodial sentence, were inappropriate in the circumstances. Under sections 177(2A) and 177(2B) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the court treated the appellant’s significant time in custody as exceptional circumstances making a separate punitive requirement unjust. The Rehabilitation Activity Requirement was necessary for rehabilitation and did not impose additional punishment in real terms.

Future release arrangements. Where an appeal may result in release and the appellant is vulnerable, representatives should contact the National Probation Service at the court in good time so that suitable accommodation and other arrangements can be investigated before the hearing.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal was allowed, the sentence was quashed and a 12-month community order with a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement was substituted: [2021] EWCA Crim 417.
2. Norwich Crown Court: On 27 November 2020, the appellant was sentenced to 16 months’ detention in a young offender institution after pleading guilty before the magistrates’ court.