The Court of Appeal reduced the sentence of a 17-year-old (‘M’) 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.
Details
M was convicted of attempted murder together with his co-defendant, aged 21. M stabbed the victim seven times in public, causing serious injuries. M’s co-defendant was found guilty as a secondary party to the attempted murder. M had previous convictions for robbery, assault emergency worker and possession of a knife in public.
M had a diagnosis of ADHD and a psychiatric assessment found that he was vulnerable, impulsive and had a low IQ. M also had a conclusive grounds decision of the National Referral Mechanism that he was a victim of modern slavery.
The sentencing judge sentenced M to a custodial sentence of 24 years. The starting point of this offence in category B2 is 25 years custody in the adult sentencing guideline, this was reduced only to 24 years when the judge weighed up the aggravating and mitigating factors. The judge gave the same sentence to M’s co-defendant. The court also gave him a concurrent sentence of 6 months in custody for possession of a bladed article.
M’s sentence was appealed on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive, particularly given his age and vulnerability factors. The Court of Appeal reduced the sentence to 18 years, emphasising the need to account for the defendant’s age, developmental immaturity, low IQ, and ADHD. It found that these “significant outweigh the aggravating factors in this case”. As a result, a significant reduction was required.
By contrast, the Court of Appeal refused M’s co-defendant’s appeal.
The Court of Appeal quashed the concurrent sentence in relation to the possession of a knife. Section 250 Sentencing Act 2020 does not apply to this offence, and it would be inappropriate to sentence him to two different types of custodial sentence. The Court of Appeal found that as a result, there were exceptional circumstances not to apply the mandatory minimum sentence.
Commentary
The decision reinforces the importance of tailoring sentences to reflect the unique circumstances of young defendants, including their vulnerability. Youth justice practitioners will note the emphasis the Court of Appeal placed on the child’s low IQ, developmental immaturity, ADHD, impulsivity and susceptibility to exploitation. It therefore highlights the need to present comprehensive evidence of this when working with children who will be sentenced, primarily through expert reports.
The decision moreover highlights the differences in sentencing exercise for children and adults. The Court of Appeal highlighted the difference in age between the two defendants, and M’s susceptibility to exploitation, and it is notable therefore that the court refused his appeal, despite him having been found guilty as a secondary party.