The King -v- D1 and D2 sentencing remarks
Details
On 1 September 2024, D1 (a boy) and D2 (a girl) (both youths of 14 and 12 respectively at the time of the incident) were both convicted of manslaughter following the death of 80-year-old Mr Kohli who at the time of the incident was walking his dog in a park.
D1 knocked Mr Kohli to the ground and hit him to the head, meanwhile D2 filmed the incident and could be heard laughing in the video of the incident. Later, near the park exit, D1 shoved, punched, and kicked Mr Kohli, according to Mr Kohli’s version of events. D2 was close by during the incident but did not directly use violence. Mr Kohli suffered a broken neck and ribs and died the next day from his injuries.
D1 was given a 7-year custodial sentence. The Honourable Mr Justice Turner noted that the balance of aggravating and mitigating features would have resulted in a sentence of 14 years had D1 been an adult. This was halved to reflect his age and level of maturity.
D2 was given a Youth Rehabilitation Order of three years which will include a 60-day activity requirement and a curfew between 7pm and 7am for 6 months. The judge noted that if he imposed a custodial sentence it would likely be short and this would likely do more harm than good, with a “very severe impact on your education and chances of rehabilitation”.
D2’s sentence reflected her young age (12 at the time of the incident), her lesser role in the incident and that she had been assessed as presenting a low risk of committing further offences.
Commentary
The principal aim of the youth justice system is to prevent (re)offending. The sentencing of D2 is an example where this principle leads to a very different sentence for a child than would be received by an adult. The fact she received a Youth Rehabilitation Order rather than a custodial sentence, means she can receive three years of intervention with the Youth Justice Service to reduce the (already assessed as low) risk of her reoffending.
On the other hand, in the sentencing of D1, Mr Justice Turner reduced the sentence that would have been given to an adult by a half. The guidance at paragraph 6.46 of the overarching sentencing guidelines for children and young people suggests a reduction of between a half and two-thirds of an adult sentence for those aged 15-17, and a greater reduction for those aged under 15. D1 was aged 14 at the time of the incident.
The difference in approach between the sentences reflects the flexibility given to Manslaughter sentences and the emphasis that judges will place on the role of a defendant during the incident. Although joint enterprise necessitates that the principal and the secondary party are both convicted if the secondary encouraged or assisted in the offence, judges will differentiate significantly in sentencing between the two.