R v AC

When sentencing a child or young person, the court must give primary weight to preventing offending and to the child’s welfare. It must apply the relevant youth sentencing guideline and assess the individual offender’s role, maturity and mitigation.

A fatal outcome cannot increase the seriousness of an offence for an offender acquitted of manslaughter without proper regard to that acquittal. Detention is a last resort. Where the offence does not require custody, a youth rehabilitation order with intensive supervision and surveillance may be suitable.

The appellant, aged 15 at the time of the offending, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to steal and was convicted of conspiracy to rob. He was acquitted of manslaughter and of possessing a bladed article. The sentencing judge imposed five years’ detention for conspiracy to rob, with four months’ detention concurrently for conspiracy to steal.

He appealed against sentence. He relied on the successful appeal of a co-accused in R v ZA [2023] EWCA Crim 596, submitting that the sentencing judge had wrongly relied on the adult robbery guideline and had treated the death of the taxi driver as affecting the seriousness of his offending despite his manslaughter acquittal.

The central issue was the correct approach to sentencing this young offender for conspiracy to rob.

1. Appeal allowed. The five-year detention sentence for conspiracy to rob was wrong in principle and manifestly excessive. The court quashed it and substituted three years’ detention. No separate penalty was imposed for conspiracy to steal.

2. The court agreed with the approach in R v ZA [2023] EWCA Crim 596. The sentencing judge had wrongly allowed the taxi driver’s death to affect the seriousness of the appellant’s offending without proper regard to his acquittal of manslaughter. She had also failed to apply the Youth Robbery Guideline or identify the factors bearing on this appellant’s seriousness.

3. Under section 58 of the Sentencing Code, preventing offending and the welfare of the child were the key guiding principles. Applying the Youth Robbery Guideline, the court considered the threatened use of a bladed article, planning, the failure to seek assistance, and the value of the intended target. It also gave substantial weight to the appellant’s age, immaturity, learning and communication difficulties, and limited involvement in a one-day conspiracy.

4. A youth rehabilitation order with intensive supervision and surveillance would have been suitable when sentence was originally passed. Custody for a young offender is a last resort and was not required by the seriousness of this offence. Given the 28 months already served, a three-year detention sentence required the appellant’s immediate release on licence. The court also quashed the concurrent detention sentence on count 1 as unlawful and confirmed the £34 victim surcharge.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence in [2023] EWCA Crim 973. It quashed the sentences imposed below and substituted three years’ detention for conspiracy to rob, with no separate penalty for conspiracy to steal.

• Central Criminal Court: On 8 July 2022, imposed five years’ detention for conspiracy to rob and four months’ detention concurrently for conspiracy to steal.