R v Matthew Linfield

When sentencing an adult for offences committed as a child, the court must have regard to the sentencing approach applicable to children and young persons and assess the sentence likely to have been imposed at the time of the offending. It must consider the applicable statutory maximum and relevant guidelines. It must not merely reduce the maximum youth sentence for a guilty plea.

Where an adult sentencing guideline is used for an offence under Sexual Offences Act 2003, section 13, its starting points and ranges require adjustment to reflect the lower maximum applicable to child offenders. The overall sentence must remain fair, just and proportionate to all the offending.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Burnley to sexual offences against two victims. The offending against C1 was committed when he was about 15 years old. The offending against C2 continued until he was an adult.

The judge imposed a total sentence of six years and six months’ imprisonment. The appellant accepted the sentences for the offences against C2, but appealed the concurrent 18-month sentences for two offences against C1. He contended that the judge had used the maximum detention and training order of 24 months as the starting point, rather than assessing the sentence likely to have been imposed when he was a child.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The court quashed the 18-month sentences imposed for the two offences against C1 and substituted concurrent sentences of four months and three months’ imprisonment. Those sentences were consecutive to the sentence for the offences against C2. The total sentence was reduced to five years and four months’ imprisonment.

2. Following R v Ahmed [2023] EWCA Crim 281, a court sentencing an adult for offending committed as a child must have regard to the Sentencing Council guideline for children and young persons. It must also assess the sentence likely to have been imposed when the offender was a child. That requires consideration of the then applicable statutory maximum, likely sentence type and length, relevant guidelines, and any statutory limits.

3. The 24-month maximum detention and training order under the Sentencing Act 2020 was the correct maximum for the C1 offending. It was not, however, the appropriate sentence before credit for the guilty plea. The relevant adult guideline for offences under sections 9 and 10 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 required adjustment because section 13 offending committed by a child carried a lower maximum sentence.

4. On the facts, the court assessed a sentence of about six months for the principal C1 count, reduced to four months for the guilty plea, and three months for the other sentenced count. The course of conduct, absence of true consent, age difference and mitigation were relevant. Totality required a sentence proportionate to the combined offending against both victims.

5. The court stressed that the type and length of sentence were fact-specific. The sentence appropriate within this overall pattern of offending was not necessarily appropriate where only comparable C1-type offences were being sentenced.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal in part and substituted concurrent sentences of four months and three months’ imprisonment for the offences against C1, producing a total sentence of five years and four months’ imprisonment.

• Crown Court at Burnley: On 6 December 2023, imposed a total sentence of six years and six months’ imprisonment for sexual offences against C1 and C2.