R v Lewis Armstrong

When sentencing a child or young person for murder, statutory starting points must be applied individually, with attention to age and maturity, ability to appreciate consequences, impulsivity, inexperience, emotional volatility and negative influences. Immaturity is relevant because it bears directly on culpability; it is not a separate basis for reducing sentence irrespective of culpability. Leave to appeal should be refused where the sentencing judge considered the relevant mitigation and there is no reasonably arguable error, legal wrongness or manifest excess.

The applicant was convicted after a jury trial in the Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent and murder. He was aged 17 when the offences were committed. He received a concurrent sentence for the first count and detention at His Majesty’s pleasure for life, with a minimum term of 23 years and 188 days for murder.

A single judge refused leave to appeal against sentence. The applicant renewed the application, arguing that the sentencing judge had insufficiently considered his immaturity, difficult background and communication and other potential needs. The central issue was whether those matters required a further reduction in the murder minimum term.

The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

1. Statutory starting point. The sentencing judge correctly applied the statutory framework under paragraph 4 of the Sentencing Act 2020. The adult starting point was 25 years, reduced to 23 years for a 17-year-old under paragraph 5A. The starting point was not to be applied mechanistically.
2. Individualised assessment. Sentencing a child or young person required consideration of the extent of the offender’s maturity and ability to appreciate the consequences of the conduct, together with whether the conduct was impulsive or affected by inexperience, emotional volatility or negative influences. The court endorsed the judge’s careful consideration of the relevant factors.
3. Immaturity and culpability. The suggestion that immaturity should be considered independently of culpability was rejected. The references to immaturity in authorities such as R v SK demonstrated that its impact was directly related to culpability. The applicant’s chronological age had been taken into account, but there was no significant evidence of immaturity beyond that age, or of mental, developmental or neurological impairment materially reducing culpability.
4. Appellate intervention. The sentencing remarks addressed the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the applicant’s recruitment of the co-defendant and the serious features of the murder. It was not reasonably arguable that the judge had erred. The minimum term was not excessive, still less manifestly excessive or otherwise wrong in law.
5. The record was amended to state that the sentence on count 1 was detention under section 250 of the Sentencing Code, as the applicant was under 18 at conviction.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused: [2024] EWCA Crim 1617.
• Single judge: refused the initial application for leave to appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne: following conviction, imposed detention for the attempted grievous bodily harm offence and detention at His Majesty’s pleasure for life, with a 23-year minimum term and 188 days credited for remand.