R v Keane Mulligan

Sentencing does not treat an offender’s 18th birthday as a cliff edge. The court must assess individual maturity beyond that birthday and give proper weight to immaturity, peer influence and emotional development. Guidance concerning children and young people may remain relevant to an immature 18-year-old. A sentence which insufficiently reflects those matters may be manifestly excessive. The court must also identify the correct guideline starting point for the substance involved and ensure that uplifts for concurrent offences properly reflect overall criminality without producing an excessive total sentence.

The appellant, aged 18 when offending and 19 at sentence, pleaded guilty to offences involving the supply of cocaine and heroin, the exploitation of three vulnerable 17-year-olds, and the importation of cannabis. The Crown Court at Liverpool imposed concurrent sentences producing an overall term of 8 years and 6 months’ detention in a young offenders’ institute.

With leave, he appealed against sentence on grounds concerning the drug starting points, the uplifts for overall criminality, his age and good character, and alleged excessiveness. The central issues were whether sufficient allowance had been made for youth and immaturity and whether the sentences properly reflected the applicable guideline categories and totality.

The appeal against sentence was allowed. The court quashed the sentences and substituted concurrent sentences totalling 6 years and 8 months’ detention in a young offenders’ institute.

1. Youth and maturity. Sentencing does not involve a cliff edge at 18. Relying on R v Clarke [2018] EWCA Crim 185, the court held that full maturity is not automatically conferred on a person’s 18th birthday and that maturity must be assessed beyond 18. Although the Guideline for Sentencing children and young people formally applies to those under 18, its individualistic and child-focused approach remained relevant to this immature 18-year-old.
2. Insufficient allowance for immaturity. The pre-sentence report identified immaturity, emotional development and peer influence. The drug sentence was placed at or near the top of the relevant category despite those matters. The exploitation sentence also made only a slight allowance for age and immaturity. Principally for that reason, the overall sentence was manifestly excessive.
3. Recalculation. The appropriate sentence after trial for the Class A drug offences was 6 years, reduced by 10 per cent for the pleas to 5 years and 5 months. The exploitation offences attracted 3 years after trial and 2 years and 9 months after credit. The appropriate uplift for those offences was 15 months.
4. Cannabis importation. The sentencing judge had used the category 4 significant-role starting point for Class A drugs. For cannabis, the correct starting point was a higher-level community order, with a range from a medium-level community order to 9 months’ custody. After allowance for age and immaturity and 25 per cent credit, the proper sentence was 6 months. It did not increase the overall sentence because the concurrent sentences already reflected the totality of the offending.
5. Orders. Counts 1 and 2 received 6 years and 8 months; counts 3, 8 and 10 received 2 years and 9 months; and count 9 received 6 months. All sentences were concurrent. Of 220 qualifying curfew days, 110 days counted towards the sentence.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The sentence appeal was allowed to the extent that the sentences were quashed and replaced, producing a total concurrent sentence of 6 years and 8 months.
2. Crown Court at Liverpool: On 12 December 2024, His Honour Judge Dennis Watson KC imposed concurrent sentences producing an overall term of 8 years and 6 months’ detention in a young offenders’ institute.