R v ART & Anor

When sentencing a child or young person, the court must apply the substance of the Overarching Guideline. It must consider the pre-sentence report, assess whether the custody threshold is crossed, and consider whether a Youth Rehabilitation Order with Intensive Supervision and Surveillance is appropriate before imposing detention.

Sentencing remarks need not reproduce the guideline or expressly reject every community-sentence alternative. Read fairly and as a whole, they must show an individualised approach focused on the offender’s age, maturity, welfare and rehabilitation. Immediate detention may nevertheless be justified where planned gang violence is exceptionally serious and the risk of serious harm is significant.

ART and AJB, aged 16 when they offended, each pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Norwich to conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm with intent. With four co-accused, they had planned a gang attack on a 15-year-old rival using machetes. The intended victim was absent, but the group threatened his mother at her home and the family later moved away.

On 5 October 2023, Her Honour Judge Robinson imposed detention in a young offender institution of three years nine months on ART and four years on AJB. They sought leave to appeal, contending that the judge had given insufficient weight to their youth, rehabilitation and pre-sentence reports, and had not adequately considered a Youth Rehabilitation Order with Intensive Supervision and Surveillance.

1. Leave to appeal was refused in both cases. The sentences were neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

2. The judge had applied the approach required by the Overarching Guideline and by R v ZA [2023] EWCA Crim 596. A sentencing court must not treat children as mini-adults. It must adopt an individualised approach and engage with the pre-sentence report, the child’s maturity, welfare and prospects of rehabilitation.

3. The judge was not required to quote paragraphs 6.44 and 6.45 of the Overarching Guideline, or to set out at length why a Youth Rehabilitation Order with Intensive Supervision and Surveillance was rejected. The question is whether the sentencing remarks, read fairly and as a whole, show that the substance of the guideline was considered and applied.

4. They did. The judge considered the applicants’ youth, lack of previous convictions, vulnerabilities, good character, engagement with the Youth Justice Service and efforts to disengage from negative influences. She also considered the reports’ assessment of a significant future risk of serious harm.

5. The planned machete attack on a 15-year-old, carried out against a background of gang violence, was exceptionally serious. The judge was entitled to conclude that no community sentence, including a stringent Youth Rehabilitation Order with Intensive Supervision and Surveillance, was appropriate. She was also entitled to use the adult offence guideline as a reference point after determining that custody was necessary, and to make reductions for age and guilty pleas.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Refused ART’s and AJB’s applications for leave to appeal against their sentences: [2023] EWCA Crim 1680.
• Crown Court at Norwich: On 5 October 2023, Her Honour Judge Robinson sentenced ART to three years nine months’ detention and AJB to four years’ detention in a young offender institution for conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm with intent.