The Court of Appeal (CoA) refused the appeal of a child’s extended sentence comprising an eight-year custodial term with a six-year extended licence for serious sexual offences, finding that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.
The Court of Appeal (CoA) refused the appeal of a child’s extended sentence comprising an eight-year custodial term with a six-year extended licence for serious sexual offences, finding that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.
Details
Trial Judge Sentencing
The applicant, referred to as RDP (random cipher to preserve his anonymity) , aged 15 at conviction and 16 at sentence, was convicted in the Youth Court of serious sexual offences against four girls aged 13–15 and committed to the Crown Court for sentence.
Although the judge recognised that youth sentencing prioritises rehabilitation and welfare, a substantial custodial sentence was considered necessary due to the seriousness and pattern of offending. The judge applied the general principles from the “Sentencing Children and Young People Overarching Principles Guidelines” but apparently neglected the child specific guideline for Sexual Offences. Applying the adult sentencing guideline for Sexual Offences, the lead rape offence was assessed as Category 3A, noting the use of alcohol and that RDP was on bail. Category 3A is an adult category of rape which refers to cases involving higher culpability but no further aggravating features in terms of the level of harm caused.
RDP was found dangerous according to the statutory test set out in s.225 Sentencing Act 2020, meeting the high threshold for a child, and received an extended sentence. The lead offence attracted five years’ custody, uplifted to eight years, with a six-year extended licence period, alongside a Sexual Harm Prevention Order and a restraining order.
Court of Appeal Decision
The CoA recognised the difficulty of sentencing children for very serious offences and the need to find the balance between welfare and rehabilitation for a young offender against the protection of the public.
The CoA held that the judge correctly followed the child-specific sentencing guidance, which provides that where a custodial sentence is unavoidable, the court may consider the adult sentencing guideline and apply a sentence broadly within the region of half to two-thirds of the adult sentence for those aged 15-17, though this is only a rough guide.
The CoA held that, although eight years was a very long custodial sentence for a boy aged 15-16, it could not be said to be excessive given the background of the offences and the expert assessments made by youth justice and an experienced child psychiatrist. The CoA also highlighted that the extended licence period was justified by particular concerns expressed in the reports about RDP’s level of empathy and insight and worries regarding RDP’s inconsistent views and behaviour. As a result, the CoA found no reason to interfere with the sentencing judge's exercise of judgment.
Commentary
This decision confirms that, although the youth justice system is focused on welfare and rehabilitation, courts will impose lengthy custodial and extended sentences where a child is found dangerous and has committed very serious sexual offences.
The case also demonstrates that the CoA is unlikely to intervene where a judge has correctly applied the principles from the Sentencing Children Overarching Principles Guideline and statutory provisions and the decision is grounded in detailed expert assessment. This is the case even where the adult offence specific sentencing guideline has been used despite there being a child-specific sentencing guideline available for the relevant category of offence. Where a custodial sentence is unavoidable the sentencing children and young people guideline allows sentencing courts to consult the equivalent adult guideline in order to determine the appropriate length of the sentence (see paragraph 40), as was done by the sentencing court here.
For practitioners, the case is a reminder that sexual offences committed by children may attract significant custodial sentences notwithstanding the offender's age or previous good character, particularly where there are aggravating features such as repeated offending, offending on bail, multiple victims, the use of alcohol to facilitate offences and concerns about the child’s empathy, insight and ongoing risk to the public.
The decision also reinforces that the reduction to half to two-thirds of an adult sentence for those aged 15-17 in the child sentencing guidelines is only a rough guide and must not be applied mechanistically. Individual factors relating to the offence and the child may justify departing from this range.