The Court of Appeal reduced the sentence of a 17-year-old for attempted murder from 24 years to 18 years, deeming the original sentence manifestly excessive. The case highlights the Court’s approach to age, vulnerability, and sentencing parity with adult co-defendants. It also provides practical insights for sentencing advocacy in serious youth cases.
Details
The case involved a 17-year-old defendant convicted of attempted murder. He and the co-defendant, aged 21, were accused of stabbing the victim several times.
The court had the benefit of pre-sentence reports and psychiatric reports on each of the appellants.
The original sentence of 24 years was appealed on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive, particularly given the defendant’s age and vulnerability. The Court of Appeal reduced the sentence to 18 years, emphasising the need to account for the defendant’s developmental immaturity and the principle of sentencing parity with adult co-defendants:
“The mitigating factors in M's case were his youth, his mental health, including his low IQ, and his vulnerability. Overall, we consider that these significantly outweigh the aggravating factors in his case and that a sentence of 24 years' custody was manifestly excessive. We quash that sentence and substitute a sentence of 18 years' detention under section 250 of the Sentencing Act 2020.”
The Court of Appeal dismissed the co-defendant’s appeal against sentence. Although he had no previous convictions, was 21 at the time of the offence, and was convicted as a secondary party, he was older than M, who was vulnerable and open to exploitation. The Court held that, despite these mitigating factors, the 24-year sentence was not manifestly excessive.
The Court’s approach aligns with established principles that children require distinct consideration due to their developmental immaturity and reduced culpability. The decision reinforces the importance of tailoring sentences to reflect the unique circumstances of children, including their vulnerability and susceptibility to exploitation.
Commentary
For youth justice practitioners and lawyers, the case emphasises the need to present comprehensive evidence of mitigating factors, including age, developmental immaturity, and vulnerability.