Liam O'Pray v R

When sentencing a young adult, the court must consider chronological and developmental age and maturity at the time of offending, and assess how far they reduce culpability. Psychological and pre-sentence reports may assist, but expert opinion must be anchored in the evidence and facts of the offence. Immaturity may be reflected through a reduction from the applicable starting point, alongside the aggravating features and totality of the offending. Where a knife attack creates a very high risk of death, lack of an intention to kill may provide only limited mitigation. The appeal was dismissed because the sentence adequately reflected age and immaturity and was not manifestly excessive.

The appellant was convicted at Manchester Crown Court of murdering Rico Burton and wounding Harvey Reilly with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. He received a life sentence with a 28-year minimum term, together with concurrent sentences for the wounding, possession of a bladed article and drug possession.

Leave to appeal was granted on the question whether the sentencing judge had given sufficient weight to the appellant’s age, developmental maturity and associated psychological factors. The Court of Appeal obtained a pre-appeal probation report and OASys assessment addressing maturity. The central issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive because insufficient account had been taken of those matters.

Appeal dismissed.

1. The sentencing court must consider an offender’s maturity at the time of the offence and assess the extent to which chronological age, developmental age and immaturity reduce culpability. The court relied on R v Kamarra-Jarra [2024] EWCA Crim 198, R v Popoola [2021] EWCA Crim 842 and R v ZA [2023] EWCA Crim 596.
2. Psychological evidence and pre-sentence reports may assist in assessing maturity and relevant psychological conditions. To assist the court, expert opinion must be tethered to the evidence and the facts of the offence, as explained in R v BRM [2022] EWCA Crim 385. It will often be preferable to adjourn sentence for such reports where relevant neurodiversity or maturity issues are indicated.
3. The applicable starting point under paragraph 4 of Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020 was 25 years. Section 322 required the minimum term to reflect the seriousness of the murder and associated offending. The five-year uplift for the wounding offence was justified.
4. The sentencing judge had given significant weight to age and immaturity through a two-year reduction from the murder starting point. The very high risk of death, the carrying and use of a knife, the escalating aggression and the absence of provocation materially limited mitigation. The pre-appeal OASys assessment confirmed the lack of maturity but did not show that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The appeal against sentence was dismissed: [2025] EWCA Crim 1379.
2. Manchester Crown Court — Following convictions on 21 July 2023, the appellant was sentenced on 4 August 2023 to life imprisonment with a 28-year minimum term, with concurrent sentences for the associated offences.