R v Ibrahim Jhangha & Anor

When sentencing a child or young person, a judge may identify the adult-offender guideline starting point and then adjust it for age and immaturity; that sequence is not, without more, a misdirection. In a joint enterprise, each participant may properly be treated as bearing some responsibility, while the court must give proper regard and weight to evidence about educational development, maturity, adverse experiences and vulnerability to exploitation. The extent of reduction for youth is a matter for the sentencing court’s judgment. The same applies to assessment of guilty-plea credit, including the relevance of youth. An appellate court will not interfere where the approach is lawful and the resulting sentence falls within the judge’s permissible discretion.

Two applicants, both aged 16 when they committed the offences, pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Reading to wounding with intent and possessing an article with a blade or point. They were sentenced to six years and four months’ detention in a young offender institution following a serious machete attack causing severe injuries.

The single judge refused both applications for leave to appeal against sentence. The applicants renewed their applications, arguing that the sentencing judge had used the wrong starting point, treated joint-enterprise responsibility incorrectly, failed to give sufficient weight to immaturity, educational difficulties and vulnerability to exploitation, and, in one case, failed properly to assess the guilty-plea credit.

Disposition

Both renewed applications for leave to appeal against sentence were refused.

1. General approach. The attack was very serious and involved a group armed with machetes, causing severe injuries in the victim’s home. The applicants’ youth justified a reduction, but the seriousness of their criminality required substantial punishment.
2. Adult starting point. There was no misdirection in identifying the adult-offender starting point and then modifying it to reflect age and immaturity. That was a permissible sentencing approach for young offenders.
3. Joint enterprise and mitigation. In the case of one applicant, the judge was entitled to proceed on the basis that the offending was a joint enterprise in which each participant bore some responsibility. The judge had properly considered material concerning educational development and maturity, and had given proper weight to adverse experiences and resulting vulnerability to exploitation.
4. Reduction for youth. In the other case, the sentencing judge had identified the relevant factors, including the positive decision following the National Referral Mechanism procedure. Those factors justified a one-third reduction from the adult figure. The precise amount of reduction for age and immaturity was a matter for the sentencing court’s judgment.
5. Guilty plea. The judge was entitled to reach the conclusion reached on the appropriate credit for the guilty plea, including the relevance of the applicants’ youth.

Neither application disclosed an arguable case that the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): refused both renewed applications for leave to appeal against sentence.
2. Crown Court at Reading: following guilty pleas, sentenced each applicant to six years and four months’ detention in a young offender institution.