R v Ebrima Fatty

When sentencing an offender who was under 18 at the time of the offence but is an adult at sentence, the court must ask what sentence would probably have been imposed when the offender was a child. The Children Guideline applies by reference to the offender’s age when offending. If custody is unavoidable, the court may use the equivalent adult guideline and take a broad starting range of one-half to two-thirds of the adult sentence for those aged 15 to 17. The reduction must reflect emotional and developmental age and maturity, must not be applied mechanically, and must precede any guilty-plea reduction. A more severe adult sentence requires good reason arising from later events or the purposes of sentencing.

The appellant pleaded guilty to section 18 wounding with intent and possession of a bladed article. He was 17 when he stabbed a 16-year-old boy, causing life-threatening injuries, and 19 when sentenced by the Crown Court at Nottingham to nine years’ detention for the section 18 offence, with a concurrent 12-month sentence for possession of the bladed article.

On appeal, he argued that the sentencing judge had treated the Children Guideline as outside direct application because he was an adult by the date of sentence. The central issue was whether sentence should instead be assessed by reference to the appellant’s age when he offended and the guideline’s approach to reducing the equivalent adult sentence.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The sentence of nine years’ detention for section 18 wounding with intent was quashed and replaced by seven years and two months’ detention in a young offender institution. All other sentences and orders remained unchanged.
2. The court applied Ahmed [2023] EWCA Crim 281. The first question was what sentence would probably have been imposed on the appellant as a 17-year-old child shortly after the offence. The court had to work through the Children Guideline, including its provisions on custody as a last resort and the available alternatives.
3. Custody was plainly the only appropriate disposal because of the seriousness of the offence and the harm caused. The equivalent adult guideline could be used as a preliminary reference point, but a broad reduction of one-half to two-thirds was appropriate for offenders aged 15 to 17. The reduction was not mechanical, and emotional and developmental age and maturity were at least as important as chronological age. It had to be made before the guilty-plea reduction.
4. The sentencing judge had correctly arrived at an adult post-trial sentence of 12 years, but erred by treating the Children Guideline as not directly applicable because the appellant was over 18 at sentence. A proper child-based starting range was six to eight years. Given the appellant’s near-18 age, immaturity, and accepted basis of plea that he had not intended a “bagging” injury, eight years was appropriate. There was no good reason to impose a more severe sentence by reference to his later age or circumstances.
5. A 10 per cent reduction for the guilty plea at trial reduced eight years to seven years and two months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against sentence was allowed to the extent that the nine-year sentence for section 18 wounding with intent was excessive. It was quashed and replaced with seven years and two months’ detention in a young offender institution. The concurrent 12-month sentence and other orders remained.
• Crown Court at Nottingham: The appellant was sentenced on 25 August 2023 to nine years’ detention for section 18 wounding with intent and a concurrent 12 months for possession of a bladed article.