R v James Rees

In sentencing a young offender who was under 18 when the offence was committed, the court should have regard to the sentence that could have been imposed had the offender been 17 at the date of sentence. Emotional and developmental maturity may be at least as important as chronological age. A substantial reduction may nevertheless be sufficient where the offender was nearly 18, had some maturity and insight, and the offence involved very high culpability and grave harm.

Delay between the offence and conviction does not require a separate reduction where the sentencing judge has already properly reflected it in the overall downward adjustment. The appellate question remains whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The appellant, who was 17 and nearly 18 when the offences were committed, was convicted at Caernarfon Crown Court of causing grievous bodily harm with intent and possessing an offensive weapon in a public place. He had stabbed the victim in the abdomen after arranging an apparent reconciliation. The victim required emergency surgery for life-threatening injuries.

The Recorder placed the offending in category 1A, with a 12-year starting point, and imposed nine years’ detention in a Young Offender Institution, concurrent with 18 months for the weapon offence. The appellant appealed against sentence, contending that the offending fell at the lower end of category 1A, that greater effect should have been given to youth and immaturity, and that insufficient allowance had been made for delay.

1. Appeal dismissed. The sentence of nine years’ detention was not manifestly excessive.
2. The offence was not at the lower end of category 1A. It involved several features of high culpability: planned and threatening conduct, possession of a knife, luring the victim away from friends, deception through apparent reconciliation, and revenge as the motivation. The life-threatening injury and its lasting consequences also demonstrated grave harm. If the appellant had been older and more mature, a sentence materially above the 12-year starting point would have been appropriate.
3. The court accepted that, consistently with the Guideline for Sentencing Children and Young People, account should have been taken of the maximum sentence that could have been passed had the appellant been 17 at the date of sentence. His youth, trauma, immaturity, mental-health difficulties, substance misuse and lack of prior custody all materially mitigated sentence.
4. Those matters did not require a greater reduction. The appellant was very nearly 18 when he offended and had some insight into his substance misuse and its causes. The Recorder’s decision not to increase the starting point, followed by a three-year reduction, gave sufficient effect to youth, immaturity and personal mitigation.
5. The two-year interval between offending and conviction had also been reflected in that overall reduction. No further adjustment was warranted.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The appellant’s sentence appeal was dismissed: [2024] EWCA Crim 1556.
• Crown Court at Caernarfon. The appellant was convicted on 23 November 2023 and, on 19 December 2023, sentenced to nine years’ detention in a Young Offender Institution for grievous bodily harm with intent and 18 months’ concurrent detention for possessing an offensive weapon.