SL, R. v

When sentencing a child by a Youth Rehabilitation Order, later offending cannot be treated as aggravating the offence being sentenced. A curfew may serve punitive and rehabilitative purposes as part of an intensive package of requirements. Its duration must remain proportionate. In assessing whether a further curfew is manifestly excessive, regard should be had to the child’s age, the absence of actual violence and the period already spent subject to a bail curfew. A further six-month curfew was excessive on the facts, but three months was appropriate.

After being convicted of robbery at the Crown Court at Woolwich, the appellant was sentenced on 22 January 2021 to a six-month Youth Rehabilitation Order. The order included an electronically monitored curfew from 9 pm to 6 am, together with residence, programme and supervision requirements. The appellant, aged 14 when the offence was committed, appealed by leave against sentence. The issues included the use of later convictions as aggravation and the duration and proportionality of the curfew, particularly in light of an eleven-month bail curfew.

The appeal was allowed to the extent that the six-month curfew requirement was quashed and a three-month requirement substituted. The curfew hours and electronic monitoring remained unchanged.

1. Later offending. The sentencing judge appeared to have treated nearly all of the appellant’s later offences as aggravating the robbery. That was unfair. Offences committed after the offence being sentenced could not properly aggravate that offence.
2. Seriousness and the Youth Rehabilitation Order. The victim was vulnerable because he was aged 14. The theft had been carefully planned, and it should have been obvious that the victim might resist, prompting the threat of violence. Those matters supported an element of punishment. The residence, programme and supervision requirements were neither excessive nor disproportionate.
3. Curfew. A curfew requirement may form part of a package intended both to assist a young offender and to provide an element of punishment. It was not inappropriate merely because the appellant had previously been subject to a bail curfew.
4. Proportionality. The appellant had been subject to a curfew for about eleven months while on bail. Having regard to his age and the fact that no violence had actually been inflicted, imposing a further six-month curfew was manifestly excessive. A lesser period was required. The court substituted three months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): in [2021] EWCA Crim 596, allowed the sentence appeal in part, quashed the six-month curfew requirement and substituted a three-month requirement.
• Crown Court at Woolwich: convicted the appellant of robbery on 3 December 2020 and, on 22 January 2021, imposed a six-month Youth Rehabilitation Order with curfew, residence, programme and supervision requirements.