R v Ahmed [2023] EWCA Crim 281
Summary
In this important case, the Court of Appeal clarified the approach that must be adopted when sentencing an adult for offences committed when they were a child.
Details
This case concerned five separate appeals against sentence. In all five cases, the appellants were convicted of historic offences, which had been committed when they were children, and sentenced to lengthy custodial sentences. The Court of Appeal considered what the correct approach is when sentencing an adult for offences committed when they were a child.
The Court was not persuaded by the respondent’s submission that the guideline on sentencing children and young people only applied where there was ‘relative temporal proximity’. The Court confirmed that whatever the defendant’s age at the time of conviction and sentence, the guideline on sentencing children and young people is relevant and must be followed where they committed the offence as a child unless the Court is satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.
The Court must have regard to the maximum sentence that would have been available at the time of the defendant’s offending and, as its starting point, the Court should take the sentence which would have been imposed if the defendant had been sentenced as a young person. However, as with any sentencing exercise, that starting point can increase and decrease.
If, in all of the circumstances of the case, the defendant could not have been sentenced to any form of detention at the time of the offending, then a custodial sentence cannot be imposed by the Court. Where a period of detention would have been available, the Court is not bound by the maximum sentence that would have been available to the Court at the time of the offending. However, the Court should only exceed that maximum sentence where there is good reason to do so. The mere fact that the defendant is now an adult is not in itself a good reason. The Court added that they found it very difficult to think of any circumstances in which a good reason could properly be found.
In each case, the issue for the court to resolve will be whether there is good reason to impose a sentence more severe than they would have imposed if the defendant had been sentenced as a child at the time of the offending.
In all five appeals, the sentences were reduced.
Commentary
This will undoubtedly become the new guideline case on sentencing young adults in respect of offences committed as children.
It is very positive to see that the Court of Appeal has once again recognised that children and young people require a different and special approach when it comes to sentencing and that they should not be treated as ‘cut down’ versions of adults. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Parliament and the Courts have long recognised that in general, children are less culpable, and less morally responsible, for their acts than adults. In this case, the Court of Appeal has made abundantly clear that principles that apply when sentencing children and young people do not become any less relevant just because they have crossed into adulthood. Importantly, the Court was unable to provide any examples of what would amount to a ‘good reason’ to impose a sentence more severe than the maximum sentence that would have been available at the time of the offence. This suggests that the circumstances in which such a reason would arise are exceptional, however, each case will be considered on its own facts.
Written by Sabrina Neves, Solicitor at GT Stewart Solicitors