R. v G (18/01/2017, unreported)
The Court of Appeal considered the purpose of sentencing for children namely, to prevent reoffending and to promote the welfare of the child, when they quashed a sentence of 27 months’ detention following a conviction for wounding with intent and substituted a Youth Rehabilitation Order (YRO).
Details
The 16 year old child was involved in an altercation with her father’s friend, the victim. The child was staying at her father’s house. Her father and the victim were both friends and alcoholics. On the evening prior to the incident the victim made a sexually suggestive remark to the child. The next day the child returned to the house with the father, the victim, the child’s uncle and a group of others. They consumed alcohol and the victim was alleged to have referred to the child as a “pikey fucker”. The child went to the kitchen, took a kitchen knife and went to stab him. The victim grabbed the knife and pushed the child to the floor before the child’s uncle entered the room and stabbed him several times with the knife. The victim sustained injuries to his leg, side of chest and thumb. The sentencing judge concluded that the child might have caused the cut to the victim’s thumb and that any injuries she had inflicted were very much less severe than those inflicted by her uncle. The sentencing judge took into account that there had been an element of provocation and the pre-sentence report highlighted her difficult background growing up. Both her parents were alcoholics and at aged 8 she had been placed with her maternal grandparents. Her mother had died when she was 13.
The Court of Appeal was given a post sentence supplemental report which had not been available to the sentencing judge. It referred to the child’s exemplary behaviour in detention between her arrest and the trial. It stated she had shown a significant degree of commitment and co-operation and she had benefited from guidance offered by her aunt and uncle, where she had been on a curfew at their home.
The Court of Appeal took into account the fact that her time on a curfew had not been taken into account by the sentencing judge as it wasn’t a qualifying curfew. The Court also took into account that her risk of reoffending had reduced since her detention when it decided to quash her 27 months detention. This was replaced with a YRO with supervision and curfew elements and an extended activity requirement.
Commentary
This case is an example of the importance of reminding sentencing courts of the purpose of sentencing children: to prevent reoffending and promote the welfare of the child. Practitioners may wish to use this case to remind the court of these principles, especially where a child’s conduct since the date of the offence and positive progress has meant their risk of reoffending has reduced.