R v Corey Burkitt

For a defendant aged 16, a detention order may be imposed only where the offence satisfies the statutory criteria in section 250 of the Sentencing Act 2020. Where those criteria are absent, detention is unavailable. A detention and training order must also satisfy its own statutory conditions and should not ordinarily be imposed concurrently or consecutively with a lengthy custodial sentence in circumstances of this kind. If an unlawful concurrent sentence has already been taken into account in fixing the minimum term for a more serious offence, the proper disposal is to quash it and substitute no separate penalty. That avoids double counting and does not alter the overall sentence.

The 16-year-old applicant was convicted of murder in the Crown Court at Wolverhampton on 13 February 2024. On 15 February 2024, Wall J sentenced him to detention at His Majesty’s Pleasure with a minimum term of 15 years. The applicant had pleaded guilty to possessing the bladed article used in the killing and received a concurrent 12-month detention term on that count. The Court of Appeal considered whether that concurrent term was lawful and, if not, what order should replace it. The issue did not affect the murder minimum term.

Appeal allowed in part. The 12-month concurrent detention term on count 3 was unlawful, was quashed and was replaced by no separate penalty. The order did not affect the 15-year minimum term for murder.

1. Because the applicant was aged 16 and the bladed-article offence did not satisfy the criteria in section 250 of the Sentencing Act 2020, no order for detention was available on count 3. Although a 16-year-old may in principle receive a detention and training order, the necessary statutory criteria were also absent.
2. The Court relied on the established guidance concerning detention and training orders. R v JC (Carroll) [2004] EWCA Crim 1367 addressed the impermissibility of adding a detention and training order consecutively to detention in a young offender institution. R v Dacus [2020] EWCA Crim 1879 stated that a concurrent detention and training order is not usually appropriate where the offender is subject to a lengthy period of detention. The Court also applied the analogous disposal in R v NH [2023] EWCA Crim 241.
3. The possession of the machete had already increased the starting point for the murder minimum term. The sentencing judge had therefore correctly avoided double counting it in fixing the overall term. In those circumstances, no separate penalty was the proper order on count 3.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On 24 January 2025, the Court allowed the appeal to the limited extent that the concurrent 12-month detention term was quashed and replaced by no separate penalty: [2025] EWCA Crim 455.
2. Crown Court at Wolverhampton — The applicant was convicted of murder on 13 February 2024 and sentenced by Wall J on 15 February 2024 to detention at His Majesty’s Pleasure with a minimum term of 15 years, together with the concurrent sentence on count 3.