YOUNG OFFENDERS

[2020] EWCA Crim 155
[2020] EWCA Crim 155
CA (Crim Div) (Dingemans LJ, Elisabeth Laing J, Judge Wall QC)
13 February 2020

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions of two young offenders for conspiracy to commit robbery. The trial judge had been entitled to continue with the trial after a 16-year-old prosecution witness with ADHD, who had given evidence in chief and who had been cross-examined in part on behalf of one of the accused, became distressed and refused to continue to give evidence.

[2019] EWCA Crim 2286
[2019] EWCA Crim 2286
CA (Crim Div) (Lord Burnett LCJ, Fulford LJ, Holroyde LJ)
20 December 2019

In conjoined appeals against sentence brought by two young offenders and an adult offender, the court considered the proper approach to sentencing offenders who suffered from autism or other mental health conditions or disorders.

[2019] EWCA Crim 2282
[2019] EWCA Crim 2282
CA (Crim Div) (Nicola Davies LJ, Jacobs J, Judge Lodder QC)
14 November 2019

A sentence of 20 months’ detention imposed following a guilty plea to causing serious injury by dangerous driving was reduced to 14 months to reflect the young offender’s personal mitigation, including his age, inexperience, injuries and remorse. He was six weeks short of his eighteenth birthday at the time of the offence and, in reducing the sentence, the court took account of the guideline for sentencing children and young people, which referred to appropriate sentences where a significant age threshold was passed.

[2019] EWCA Crim 1865
[2019] EWCA Crim 1865
CA (Crim Div) (Leggatt LJ, Carr J, Judge Thomas QC)
25 October 2019

A judge had failed to pay adequate regard to the likelihood of a young offender’s development and susceptibility to change in the right environment when imposing an extended sentence for offences including robbery. The judge had been wrong not to find that the offending, serious though it was, could be sufficiently punished and the public sufficiently protected by a determinate sentence.

[2019] EWCA Crim 1718
[2019] EWCA Crim 1718
CA (Crim Div) (Hamblen LJ, William Davis J, Andrew Baker J)
11 October 2019

In assessing the dangerousness of a young offender a judge should specifically address, and give sufficient weight to, the age and apparent maturity of the offender.

[2019] EWCA Crim 1583
[2019] EWCA Crim 1583
CA (Crim Div) (Nicola Davies LJ, Lavender J)
20 September 2019

When sentencing an 18-year-old offender, a judge had erred in failing to take as his starting point the sentence likely to have been imposed on the offender when the offence was committed. The offender was 17 years old when the offence was committed and the maximum sentence available to the court would have been 24 months’ detention.

[2019] EWCA Crim 1568
[2019] EWCA Crim 1568
CA (Crim Div) (Lord Burnett LCJ, Warby J, Edis J)
17 September 2019

A challenge, by way of judicial review, by a young offender convicted of the murder and rape of a 14-year-old girl, to an excepting direction which discharged a reporting restriction order imposed under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s.45(3), was refused.

[2019] EWCA Crim 1542
[2019] EWCA Crim 1542
CA (Crim Div) (Hickinbottom LJ, Carr J, Andrews J)
15 August 2019

Custodial sentences of 12 months imposed on two young women who had pleaded guilty to being involved in the staged robbery of a betting shop were quashed and replaced with shorter suspended sentences where the judge had not properly considered the complex personal circumstances and strong mitigating factors in both cases.

[2019] EWHC 2026 (QB)
[2019] EWHC 2026 (QB)
DC (Dame Victoria Sharp PQBD, Nicklin J)
29 July 2019

Changes to the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 had not ousted the court’s jurisdiction, arising from Venables v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2001] Fam. 430, to order lifetime anonymity for a child offender after their 18th birthday in exceptional cases. It was necessary to make such order for an offender who had pleaded guilty to inciting terrorism overseas when he was 14 years old. Identifying him in public would fundamentally undermine his rehabilitation and leave him very vulnerable to exploitation and potential re-radicalisation, in particular due to his autism.

[2019] EWCA Crim 1326
[2019] EWCA Crim 1326
CA (Crim Div) (Davis LJ, Edis J, Judge Potter)
24 July 2019

A defendant convicted of murder at the age of 15 was refused an application to adduce fresh psychiatric evidence aimed at explaining his reasons for maintaining his innocence at trial. His admission of guilt after conviction was tactical and made in order to gain sentencing advantage.

Scroll to top