R v BGW

When sentencing a child or young person, the court must adopt an individualised, youth-focused approach. It should consider the general youth sentencing principles and any offence-specific guideline before applying the rough age reduction in paragraph 6.46. Emotional and developmental age are at least as important as chronological age. Mental disorder, traumatic history and the additional impact of custody may amount to substantial personal mitigation, even where their contribution to offending and culpability is limited. An extended sentence is unavailable for an offence that is not a specified offence under section 255 of the Sentencing Act 2020. The court reduced the sentences for conspiracy to kidnap and false imprisonment and replaced unlawful extended sentences for conspiracy to blackmail with ordinary determinate sentences.

Following a jury trial at Harrow Crown Court, the appellant, aged 17 at trial and 16 during the offences, was convicted of two conspiracies to kidnap, two conspiracies to commit false imprisonment and two conspiracies to blackmail arising from two episodes involving one victim. The trial judge imposed concurrent extended sentences of 15 years and 6 months on each count, comprising 10 years and 6 months’ custody and a five-year extension period.

On appeal, the appellant argued that his age, complex PTSD, ADHD, traumatic history and other mitigation warranted a greater reduction, and that the disparity with his co-defendants was excessive. Further psychological and psychiatric material was obtained. The central issues were the proper youth-sentencing reduction, the significance of vulnerability and custody impact, and whether extended sentences were legally available for conspiracy to blackmail.

Appeal allowed in part. The court reduced the custodial terms and corrected the unlawful extended sentences while maintaining the finding of dangerousness.

1. Youth sentencing. The rough indication in paragraph 6.46 of the youth sentencing guidelines is not mechanical. The court applied the guidance in R v ZA [2023] EWCA Crim 596 at [82]. Sentencing should begin with the general youth principles and any youth-specific guideline. The assessment must be individualised and must consider rehabilitation, underlying causes, the likely effect of sentence, and emotional and developmental age, which are at least as important as chronological age.
2. Vulnerability and culpability. The reports established that the appellant’s PTSD and other conditions made custody substantially more difficult and trauma-inducing. That additional impact was personal mitigation and was relevant to rehabilitation. The evidence that the conditions caused or diminished culpability was less clear. The appellant’s role as the architect and driving force of both kidnappings, together with the jury’s rejection of his duress case, meant that any reduction in culpability was limited. The principal mitigating consideration was vulnerability and the effect of custody.
3. Reduction and disparity. The appellant’s age alone justified at least a one-third reduction from the 16-year adult starting point. His conditions, traumatic background and good character justified a further substantial reduction, making an overall reduction by one half appropriate. The disparity ground had no merit because the appellant alone participated in both episodes and drove them.
4. Extended sentences. The finding of dangerousness and the five-year extension period were maintained for the kidnapping and false-imprisonment conspiracies. Under section 255 of the Sentencing Act 2020, conspiracy to blackmail was not a specified offence, so an extended sentence was unavailable. The extended sentences on counts 8 and 10 were quashed and replaced with concurrent ordinary determinate sentences of eight years’ detention in a young offender institution. The sentences on counts 1, 4, 7 and 9 became concurrent extended sentences of 13 years, comprising eight years’ detention and a five-year licence period.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The appeal against sentence was allowed to the extent that the custodial terms were reduced and the extended sentences for conspiracy to blackmail were quashed: [2023] EWCA Crim 1198.
2. Crown Court at Harrow — Following trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to concurrent extended sentences of 15 years and 6 months on each count.