R v HBF

When sentencing a child for grave offending, the court must apply the child sentencing guideline as a structured exercise. It must assess seriousness, aggravating and mitigating features, personal mitigation and guilty-plea reduction, while giving proper weight to age and developmental difficulties. Custody remains a last resort, but may be inevitable where offending is particularly serious and repeated, the effect on victims is severe, and no viable community alternative exists. A substantial custodial sentence is not manifestly excessive where appropriate youth discount has been applied and a shorter detention and training order would not adequately reflect the gravity of the offending.

The applicant committed the offences at age 13 and was 14 when sentenced. He pleaded guilty to four offences of possessing a bladed article, two sexual assaults and attempted robbery. The Crown Court at Leicester imposed concurrent terms of three years and six months’ detention under section 250 of the Sentencing Code for the sexual assaults and attempted robbery, with no separate penalty for the bladed-article offences.

He brought a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence, arguing that the judge had sentenced him as a small adult and had failed properly to account for his chronological age and developmental immaturity. The central issues were whether the child sentencing guideline had been applied correctly and whether the total sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Application refused. The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal. The sentence was not manifestly excessive.
2. The judge was entitled to use the five-step approach in the Sentencing Children and Young People Guideline for Sexual Offences: assessing seriousness; considering aggravating and mitigating factors; considering personal mitigation; applying the guilty-plea reduction; and reviewing the sentence, including adult guidance if custody was inevitable. The fact that seriousness was not addressed at the beginning of the sentencing remarks did not invalidate the exercise because the remarks, read as a whole, explained the seriousness assessment and the relevant aggravating and mitigating features.
3. The offending involved significant planning, concealment of identity, a knife on each occasion and the targeting of lone women at night. It was repeated and had serious effects on each complainant. Those features justified the conclusion that custody was inevitable, notwithstanding the applicant’s age and developmental difficulties.
4. The judge properly considered whether a non-custodial sentence or a detention and training order was available. He applied a substantial discount for youth and mitigation. The resulting three-year-six-month term was approximately 40 per cent of the adult equivalent sentence, and the applicant’s younger age justified a greater reduction than the guideline range suggested for offenders aged 15 to 17. A detention and training order limited to two years would not adequately reflect the gravity of the offending.
5. On an appeal against sentence, the relevant question was whether the total term was manifestly excessive. Given the seriousness of the offences, the absence of a viable community alternative and the discounts applied, that threshold was not met.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence. [2025] EWCA Crim 1282.
• Crown Court at Leicester — imposed concurrent terms of three years and six months’ detention for each sexual assault and the attempted robbery.