R v Jamie Lee Stevens

When sentencing a young offender who has recently turned 18, the court must make a specific allowance for age and lack of maturity. There is no sharp sentencing cliff-edge at adulthood. A failure to do so is an error of principle and may render the sentence manifestly excessive.

A detailed victim personal statement can sufficiently establish grave and permanent harm without routine medical evidence. An offender under 21 cannot be sentenced to imprisonment and must instead receive detention in a young offender institute under the Sentencing Act 2020. The statutory time limits and open-court requirements governing correction of sentences and credit for qualifying curfew must be observed.

The appellant, aged 18, pleaded guilty in the Crown Court to causing grievous bodily harm with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He sprayed ammonia or a corrosive liquid into the victim’s face, causing permanent loss of sight in one eye.

The Recorder imposed a sentence expressed as 10 years and six months’ imprisonment. She treated the offence as category 1A, found the appellant dangerous, and declined to impose an extended sentence. At a later slip-rule hearing, she purported to revoke an existing youth rehabilitation order.

The appellant appealed against sentence. The central issues were the guideline categorisation, the effect of his age and maturity, dangerousness, and technical defects in the form and correction of the sentence.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the determinate sentence and substituted an extended sentence comprising nine years’ detention in a young offender institute and an extended licence period of 18 months.

2. The Recorder was entitled to place the offence in category 1A. The detailed victim personal statement established permanent and severe eye injury. Medical reports are not routinely required. The corrosive substance was a highly dangerous weapon, and the planning, threats, prior convictions, and offending while subject to a youth rehabilitation order justified movement from the 12-year starting point to 14 years.

3. The Recorder, however, failed to make a distinct reduction for the appellant’s age and lack of maturity. A person does not acquire adult maturity automatically on turning 18. The resulting sentence was therefore reached by an error of principle and was manifestly excessive for this appellant. The appropriate pre-plea term was 12 years, reduced by 25 per cent for the guilty plea to nine years.

4. The finding of dangerousness under section 380 of the Sentencing Act 2020 was upheld. The appellant’s pattern of arming himself and using weapons created a significant risk of serious harm from further specified offences. An 18-month extended licence period was therefore appropriate.

5. The original sentence of imprisonment was unlawful because, under section 227 of the Sentencing Act 2020, an offender below 21 must receive detention in a young offender institute. The purported revocation of the youth rehabilitation order at a slip-rule hearing was outside the 56-day limit in section 385(2) and was ineffective. The Court itself revoked the order. It also directed credit of eight days for qualifying curfew, applying section 325(4) and the calculation principles in R v Marshall [2015] EWCA Crim 1999.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal and substituted an extended sentence: [2023] EWCA Crim 243.
• Crown Court: On 5 August 2022, imposed 10 years and six months expressed as imprisonment following the appellant’s guilty plea.
• Suffolk Youth Court: On 21 October 2021, imposed a youth rehabilitation order for the earlier section 20 offence.