R v TJ

Sentencing a child is not a mathematical exercise. The sentencer must apply the relevant youth sentencing guidance and keep the child’s age, circumstances and capacity for change at the forefront of the decision. Dangerousness concerns the risk of serious harm to the public in the future, rather than further punishment. Youth, possible transient violence, a limited criminal record and no previous rehabilitative order require careful consideration but do not prevent a dangerousness finding where the offending demonstrates serious and repeated violence. For an offender under 18, detention in a young offender institution is unavailable; the statutory detention and training order regime must be used, subject to its minimum term and concurrency rules.

The appellant, a youth aged 16 at the hearing, appealed against a total sentence of seven years and four months imposed by the Crown Court at Croydon for six offences committed when aged 13 and 15. The sentence comprised four years and four months’ detention and a three-year licence period following a finding that he was dangerous.

The appeal challenged both the approach taken to sentencing a child and the dangerousness finding. A single judge allowed the dangerousness ground to proceed but rejected the challenge to the youth sentencing approach. At the hearing, the appellant renewed both arguments. The central issues were whether the sentencing judge had properly applied the principles governing youth sentencing, whether the appellant could properly be assessed as dangerous, and whether the sentence contained technical statutory errors.

The appeal succeeded to a limited extent. The court rejected the challenge to the sentencing approach and upheld the finding that the appellant was dangerous. It corrected technical errors in the form and concurrency of the sentences, without altering their practical length.

1. Youth sentencing. The sentencing judge had carefully referred to the relevant guidance and identified the principles applicable to sentencing a child. He had kept the appellant’s age, background and personal circumstances in mind. Sentencing a young person was not treated as a merely mathematical exercise.
2. Dangerousness. The assessment focused on the risk of serious harm which the appellant was thought to present to the public in the future. It was not an additional punishment. The court accepted that young people may be impulsive and that violent behaviour may pass as they mature. However, the appellant’s age, limited previous record and absence of a youth rehabilitation order or detention and training order did not prevent a dangerousness finding. The repeated, unprovoked violence against three people on one day, the severity of the injuries, the earlier assault and the probation officer’s assessment entitled the sentencing judge to reach that conclusion. The court also considered the psychiatric and educational evidence and the positive signs of possible rehabilitation.
3. Technical errors. Under Sentencing Act 2020, detention in a young offender institution was unavailable because the appellant was under 18: section 262 required detention and training orders under section 234. The minimum detention and training order was four months under section 236, making the four-week sentence unlawful. The determinate sentence should have been expressed as detention rather than imprisonment. Detention and training orders could not run concurrently with the extended sentence under section 254.
4. Orders. The extended sentence of seven years and four months remained unchanged. The sentences for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, intentional strangulation, possession of a bladed article and the two robberies were quashed and replaced with no separate penalty on each count. The court also made the reporting restriction order under s.45.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2025] EWCA Crim 1391, the court upheld the approach to youth sentencing and the dangerousness finding, but corrected unlawful concurrent and otherwise technically defective sentences.
• Crown Court at Croydon: Mr Recorder Goudie imposed a total sentence of seven years and four months, including an extended sentence and a three-year licence period.