The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against sentence brought by a young person convicted of intentional non-fatal strangulation, assault, and criminal damage who was 17 at the time of the offending but sentenced shortly after turning 18. While the court felt detention was justified in principle, the Court substituted conditional discharges, recognising that he had already served the equivalent of a much longer custodial term on remand and should not face further punishment through licence and post-sentence supervision.
Details
- The young person, aged 17 at the time of offending, assaulted his 18-year-old partner on New Year’s Eve 2022. He kicked down a bathroom door, kicked the victim’s thigh, and strangled her with both hands for 5–6 seconds, leaving visible marks (paras 2–3).
- He later pleaded guilty to non-fatal strangulation (Serious Crime Act 2015, s.75A), assault by beating, and criminal damage (paras 4–5).
- At sentence (September 2024), the Crown Court imposed 9 months’ detention in a young offender institution for the strangulation, with concurrent terms for the other offences. The judge considered a community order but concluded that the seriousness crossed the custody threshold (para 9).
- The Court of Appeal upheld that detention was within the proper range given the seriousness of the offence and its aggravating features, and that the judge had regard to child sentencing principles (paras 19–21).
- However, the Court found the judge was mistaken about the effect of his sentence. The young person had already served 10 months on remand, equivalent to a 20-month sentence, but was then subject to both licence and post-sentence supervision conditions (paras 22–24).
- The Court held that further post-sentence supervision served no sentencing purpose and quashed the custodial terms, substituting 2-year conditional discharges (paras 25–28).
Commentary
The case highlights the risks when a child turns 18 before sentence. Although custody for non-fatal strangulation was considered within range and the courts treat domestic violence offences particularly seriously, the youth discount could be argued to have been applied in a formulaic way, with little reflection on immaturity, PTSD, and the welfare aims of youth justice. The Court of Appeal observed that a short custodial term, following lengthy remand, still triggered licence and post-sentence supervision, imposing unintended additional punishment. Practitioners should ensure sentencing courts are alive to these consequences and raise them with the sentencing judge, especially where a Youth Rehabilitation Order would likely have been imposed had the defendant remained under 18.