R v Cortez Watson-Berry

When sentencing a young adult, the court must assess maturity individually. The eighteenth birthday is not a cliff edge. Youth, delayed maturity and personal mitigation may justify a substantial reduction from an adult sentence, but must be balanced against the seriousness and repetition of the offending.

Concurrent sentences for serious offences committed on separate occasions are permissible. However, the sentence for the lead offence must reflect the overall criminality. Where a custodial sentence is unduly lenient, public protection may be achieved by a sufficient custodial term even if the offender is dangerous; an extended sentence is required only where it is necessary for that protection.

The offender committed a knife-possession offence when aged 17. After turning 18, and while on bail, he committed two serious robberies with others. The later robbery involved machetes and an imitation firearm, and caused serious psychological harm to the victims.

He pleaded guilty to the earlier possession offence at Basildon Crown Court and was convicted after trial at Wood Green Crown Court of the later robbery, weapons and firearm offences. His Honour Judge Godfrey imposed concurrent sentences, producing a total of three years and nine months’ detention in a young offender institution.

The Solicitor General referred the sentence as unduly lenient. The issues were whether the total sentence properly reflected the separate serious robberies and the offender’s youth, and whether an extended sentence was necessary for public protection.

1. The court granted leave under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, held that the total sentence was unduly lenient, and quashed the 45-month sentence for the November robbery. It substituted six years’ detention in a young offender institution. The other concurrent sentences and orders remained unchanged.

2. The earlier knife-possession offence had been committed when the offender was 17 and was his first offence. On the facts, it may have attracted a non-custodial youth sentence if dealt with alone. Fairness required sentencing on that basis. Later offending could not justify increasing the custodial term for that earlier offence.

3. The court accepted the robbery categorisations under the applicable guidelines. The November robbery justified an initial reduction from its starting point because, although the psychological harm was serious, it was towards the lower end of category 1. Each robbery nevertheless required an upward adjustment for its aggravating features and for commission while on bail.

4. Concurrent sentences were not wrong in principle. Yet the lead sentence had to reflect the total criminality of serious offences on separate days. A mature adult would have received about 11 years’ imprisonment before mitigation. Substantial personal mitigation and youth warranted a major reduction, but not below six years.

5. The court recognised the continued relevance of youth after age 18, consistently with R v ZA [2023] EWCA Crim 596. It found the offender dangerous for sentencing purposes, but an extended sentence was unnecessary. His lack of prior offending or custody, prospects of maturation, family support and the increased custodial term meant that the six-year sentence sufficiently protected the public.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): in R v Cortez Watson-Berry, [2024] EWCA Crim 1098, granted the Attorney General’s reference, quashed the 45-month sentence for the November robbery and substituted six years’ detention in a young offender institution.
• Crown Court at Stoke-on-Trent (His Honour Judge Godfrey): imposed concurrent sentences totalling three years and nine months’ detention in a young offender institution.
• Crown Court at Wood Green: on 20 April 2024, convicted the offender after trial of the later robbery, bladed-article and imitation-firearm offences.
• Crown Court at Basildon: on 24 July 2023, accepted the offender’s guilty plea to the earlier possession-of-a-bladed-article offence.