R v Trai Fraser

Age and developmental maturity are relevant to culpability when sentencing a young adult. A sentencing judge must address those matters where properly raised and consider material bearing on the offender’s maturity and developmental reality. The judge may assess the offender as having maturity typical for the relevant age where the evidence does not show unusual immaturity. General awareness that young adult brains continue to mature does not require a lower sentence in every case. An appeal will fail where the judge considered age and maturity, made no error of principle, and imposed a sentence that was not manifestly excessive.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Harrow of possessing a bladed article contrary to section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. He received 21 months’ imprisonment, together with the full activation of an earlier suspended sentence of 15 months, to run consecutively.

He appealed against sentence on the ground that the judge had insufficient regard to his relative youth and immaturity. The central issue was whether the sentencing remarks showed an error of principle in the treatment of age, maturity and culpability. The Court of Appeal also considered the correctness of the surcharge.

1. Sentence. Immediate custody for the index offence and full activation of the suspended sentence were appropriate. Given the seriousness of the repeat offending and the failure of previous non-custodial measures, anything else would have been unrealistic. Full activation was consistent with the applicable guideline.
2. Age and maturity. In sentencing a young adult, age may affect maturity and culpability. Relevant material concerning the offender’s maturity and developmental reality may therefore weigh in the balance, as recognised in R v Daniels (Branden) [2019] EWCA Crim 296.
3. Application. The sentencing judge had not ignored age or maturity. He acknowledged the appellant’s age and the research concerning the development of the young adult brain. He was entitled to proceed on the basis that the appellant had maturity typical for his age because there was no medical or psychiatric evidence, no useful evidence of unusual immaturity in the character reference, and no such evidence in the pre-sentence report. The report’s observations concerned offending at age 19 and did not establish unusual immaturity at age 21.
4. The judge’s approach involved no error of principle. The 21-month term was not manifestly excessive, particularly having regard to the appellant’s antecedents, the aggravating features, totality and prison conditions. The appeal against imprisonment was dismissed.
5. The £187 surcharge was incorrect. That order was quashed and £156 substituted. Otherwise, the appeal was dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The appeal against the custodial sentence was dismissed. The surcharge was quashed and reduced to £156: [2024] EWCA Crim 421.
2. Crown Court at Harrow — The appellant was convicted of possessing a bladed article and sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment. A suspended sentence of 15 months was activated in full and ordered to run consecutively.