R v KK

For an offender under 18, detention under section 250 of the Sentencing Act 2020 is available only where the offence falls within the table in section 249. Section 20 unlawful wounding is outside that table, even where other counts qualify. Where detention is available for some offences but not others, the court should impose detention for the qualifying offences and no separate penalty for the non-qualifying offence. An appellate court may therefore quash the unlawful sentence on one count while preserving concurrent detention on qualifying counts.

The appellant, aged 15 when the offences were committed, pleaded guilty to two robberies and to unlawful wounding contrary to section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The Crown Court at Manchester imposed 27 months’ detention under section 250 of the Sentencing Act 2020 on the wounding count, with concurrent sentences on the robbery counts. The original grounds challenging sentence length were not pursued. The appeal was limited to whether detention under section 250 was lawful on the wounding count and, if not, what order should replace it.

Appeal allowed in part.

1. Under sections 249 and 250 of the Sentencing Act 2020, detention is available for an offender under 18 only where the offence is listed in the statutory table. An offence under section 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 was not listed. The sentence of detention on count 4 was therefore unlawful.
2. The robbery counts qualified for detention because robbery contrary to section 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968 was punishable with imprisonment for at least 14 years, within section 249(a)(ii). The 27-month concurrent detention sentence on those counts was therefore unaffected.
3. In R v Carol [2004] EWCA Crim 1367, the court had held that, where detention under the predecessor provision, section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, was available for some offences but not others, the judge should sentence under that provision for the qualifying offences and impose no separate penalty for the remaining offences. The court adopted that approach.
4. The sentence on count 4 was quashed and no separate penalty was imposed. The concurrent 27-month detention sentences on counts 1 and 2 remained in force. Count 3, the charge under section 18 of the 1861 Act, was ordered to lie on the file.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): allowed the appeal to the extent of quashing the sentence on count 4 and imposing no separate penalty; the concurrent sentences on counts 1 and 2 remained in force: [2023] EWCA Crim 230.
2. Crown Court at Manchester: imposed 27 months’ detention on count 4, concurrent with the same sentences on counts 1 and 2.