R v Jordell Solomon

An appellate court will not interfere with an extended sentence that properly reflects the offender’s youth, mental-health difficulties, the totality principle, and a well-supported finding of dangerousness. Serious violent robberies committed shortly after escape from custody may materially support dangerousness.

However, a sentence must use the statutory disposal available for the offender’s age at conviction. An expired youth rehabilitation order cannot be revoked. Where correction would not reduce the overall sentence, section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 prevents the appellate court from adding a mandatory victim surcharge.

The applicant was convicted at Kingston upon Thames Crown Court of multiple robberies and associated offences committed in 2018, when he was 17. He was later convicted of escape, attempted robbery and robbery committed after he escaped from a secure mental-health unit in 2019.

On 3 November 2022, the Crown Court imposed consecutive extended sentences totalling eight years’ custody and four years’ extended licence. It also purported to revoke an earlier youth rehabilitation order and imposed concurrent imprisonment terms for weapons offences.

The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal against sentence. He alleged excessive sentence, inadequate weight to mitigation and mental-health matters, breach of totality, and an unjustified finding of dangerousness. The court also considered whether the Crown Court had used the correct statutory sentencing powers.

1. Leave to appeal was granted only to correct jurisdictional errors. The challenge to the overall severity of sentence otherwise failed. The sentencing judge had properly reflected the applicant’s youth and immaturity, personal mitigation, mental-health difficulties, and the totality principle. The seriousness of the robberies, the stabbing, other offending, antecedents, and the offending committed during escape justified the finding of dangerousness and extended sentences.

2. The youth rehabilitation order had expired before the first convictions. The Crown Court therefore had no power under paragraph 23(1) of Schedule 7 to the Sentencing Act 2020 to revoke it or to order no separate penalty. That order was quashed.

3. For the 2018 offence, the applicant was 17 when convicted. A term of imprisonment was unavailable. The purported extended sentence under section 279 was quashed and replaced by an extended sentence of detention under section 254 of the Sentencing Act 2020, comprising four years’ custody and two years’ extended licence.

4. For the 2019 attempted robbery, the applicant was over 18 and under 21 when convicted. The correct statutory basis was section 266, not section 279, of the Sentencing Act 2020. The court substituted an extended sentence of detention in a young offender institution of four years’ custody and two years’ extended licence, consecutive to the first extended sentence.

5. The concurrent weapon sentences were replaced with concurrent detention and training orders of four months. Although a £30 victim surcharge was mandatory, section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 prevented its imposition because the appellate corrections did not reduce the overall sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted leave to appeal only to correct unlawful statutory disposals and otherwise refused leave against sentence.
• Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames: On 3 November 2022 imposed consecutive extended determinate sentences, revoked a youth rehabilitation order, and imposed concurrent imprisonment terms for weapon offences.