R. v Kamarra-Jarra (Ismaila) [2024] EWCA Crim 198
The minimum custodial term for an 18-year-old’s conviction of murder was reduced after the Court of Appeal found that the first instance judge took an unduly prescriptive approach to sentencing and paid insufficient regard to the child’s lack of maturity and appalling childhood experiences.
Background
Paragraph 5A of Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020 (introduced by section 127 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022), established a sliding scale of starting points for minimum terms of children convicted of murder, taking into consideration the age of the child and the seriousness of the murder. Age governs the usual starting point for a minimum term: the older the offender, the longer the starting point.
Details
The 18-year-old and two 17-year-old co-defendants were convicted of murdering an individual whom the 18-year-old was indebted to and was a drug runner for.
The first instance judge held that the starting minimum term for the 18-year-old would be 30 years under paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Sentencing Act 2020, and 27 years for the 17-year-old co-defendants. The first instance judge then applied a two-year upward adjustment to reflect aggravating factors (including that the murder was for gain), arriving at 32 years for the 18-year-old and 29 years for the 17-year-olds.
It was found on appeal that the first instance judge failed to give sufficient weight to the 18-year-old’s immaturity and difficult childhood experiences. The Court of Appeal further considered the combination of many adverse childhood experiences which impacted the 18-year-old’s emotional and behavioural development, including multiple separations at crucial moments in life and the 18-year-old’s history of chronic abuse. It was found that while the normal starting point is governed by age, the sentencing judge should make allowances for levels of maturity when accessing culpability. On a wholesome analysis, the 18-year-old’s troubled background outweighed the aggravating factors. The Court of Appeal also considered that the disparity between the sentences of all co-defendants was too wide, as they were in the same academic year in school and only had a sixth month difference in age between them.
As such, the Court of Appeal held that the shortest minimum term commensurate with seriousness of offending should have been no more than 28 years, not 32 years (less the days spent on remand).
Commentary
The case highlights that applying the sliding scale too literally and without regard to surrounding factors may mean that young people with difficult childhoods could face excessively long sentences. The starting points not to be applied mechanistically, but in a flexible way so as to achieve a just result, and the appropriate sentence should always remain fact specific. Those representing children and young people in similar circumstances should therefore emphasise any additional factors relating to upbringing and maturity in the context of sentencing.
Written by Adeline Tsui (Associate) and Maria Korchik (Trainee) at Paul Hastings LLP