R v Tyler John Hunt

When two or more offenders under 18 are sentenced for the same murder, Sentencing Code (Schedule 21, paragraph 5A) applies to each offender. It is not confined to cases involving a single offender. The statutory starting points cannot be ignored because they produce age-related disparity. The sentencing judge must look beyond chronological age and assess maturity, culpability and each offender’s role, balancing those matters with aggravating and mitigating factors within the statutory scheme. An otherwise proper sentence will not be reduced merely because a co-offender received a sentence that was more lenient than it should have been.

The applicant, aged 17 when the offence was committed, was convicted of murder at the Crown Court at Bristol and detained at His Majesty’s pleasure. A co-accused aged 14 received a lower minimum term. The applicant appealed against sentence, arguing that the difference caused injustice and that the sentencing judge had given insufficient weight to his immaturity and troubled childhood. The central issue was how Schedule 21 paragraph 5A operated where multiple offenders under 18 were sentenced for the same murder, and how disparity, maturity, culpability and mitigation should be assessed.

1. Disposition. Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed. The sentence was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.
2. The earlier authorities, R v Taylor [2007] EWCA Crim 803 and Attorney General References Nos 143 and 144 (R v Brown and Carty) [2007] EWCA Crim 1245, addressed the pre-June 2022 statutory position. Under that scheme, a single starting point for offenders under 18 could produce a very large disparity with the adult starting point. Paragraph 5A of Schedule 21 changed the framework by substantially increasing the starting points for young offenders approaching 18.
3. Paragraph 5A is intended to apply where several offenders under 18 are sentenced for the same murder. It cannot be treated as a scheme designed only for single-offender cases. The statutory starting points must be respected, but the sentencing judge must look beyond chronological age and assess maturity, culpability and the offenders’ respective roles. The judge must balance those matters with all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors to achieve a just result within the statutory framework. The approach in R v Kamarra-Jara [2024] EWCA Crim 198 required the court to look beyond mere chronological age.
4. The trial judge was best placed to assess the offenders’ culpability. She could not ignore paragraph 5A, but she fully reflected the applicant’s immaturity, troubled background and lack of injury to the victim. The four-year reduction from the statutory starting point was more than adequate mitigation. Any remaining disparity could have resulted from excessive leniency in the co-accused’s sentence. An otherwise proper sentence will not be reduced merely to match a sentence that was too lenient.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Leave to appeal against sentence was granted by the full court. The appeal was dismissed.
2. Crown Court at Bristol: On 30 November 2023, the applicant was convicted of murder and detained at His Majesty’s pleasure, with a minimum term of 18 years and 63 days.