The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against a 40-month detention sentence imposed for aggravated burglary, upholding the judge’s sentencing exercise where a child (aged 16) was sentenced as a young adult (aged 19). The case confirms the application of Ahmed principles but illustrates their limits where offending is grave. For a summary of the Ahmed principles, see the YJLC legal update on R v Ahmed & Ors.
Details
The appellant, HTS, was 16 when he committed aggravated burglary with others in April 2023. HTS was not, however, sentenced until October 2025, following a plea of guilty at the Crown Court at Chester, aged 19. He was one of four involved in a plan to attack a man in his home in the early hours of the morning. The two older co-defendants (aged 20 and 18, respectively, at the time of the offence) forcibly gained entry through the property’s front door while carrying large blades (including at least one machete that was recovered from the house of one of the older co-defendants). HTS remained outside but accepted joint involvement in the aggravated burglary. The victim, who was physically unharmed, described the lasting psychological impact of the event.
At the time of committing the offence, HTS had no previous convictions. However, in December 2023, following the offence but before sentencing, he committed an offence of possession of an offensive weapon for which he received a referral order in May 2024.
The sentencing judge found this to be a particularly serious offence and sentenced HTS to 40 months’ detention.
The judge adopted the following approach, considering a number of aggravating and mitigating factors (of which HTS’ age at the time of the offence was one):
- Categorised as culpability B, harm category 1 (starting point: 8 years)
- Elevated to 9 years for aggravation (night-time, group offence, dwelling, victim displaced)
- Reduced to 7.5 years for mitigation (youth, delay, employment, changed lifestyle)
- Applied one-third young offenders guideline reduction: 5 years
- Applied one-third guilty plea credit: 40 months
On appeal, it was argued that the sentence failed adequately to reflect the appellant’s youth, delay, limited role, and positive progress.
The Court of Appeal noted that this case ‘raises the difficult question of how best to deal with an offender who has committed a very serious offence but when he was still a child’. The court referenced the principles in R v Ahmed [2023] EWCA Crim 281 (and R v ZA [2023] EWCA Crim 596). R v Ahmed confirmed that when sentencing an adult for offences committed as a child, the Sentencing Council’s guideline on sentencing children and young people remains relevant and must be followed unless contrary to the interests of justice. It held that the sentencing judge had adopted a ‘conspicuously careful sentencing exercise’ and the appeal was dismissed on the basis that the Court of Appeal was ‘unable to say that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.’
Commentary
This case is a useful reminder of the structured approach required when sentencing young adults for serious offences committed as children. Under the Ahmed framework, the sentencing court must: (i) identify what sentence would likely have been imposed at or near the time of the offence, applying the children and young people guideline; (ii) recognise that adult sentencing purposes apply because the offender is now 18 or over; but (iii) ensure the adult framework does not erase the significance of childhood at the time of offending, including reduced culpability arising from immaturity and susceptibility to peer pressure. The Court of Appeal endorsed this approach here but also demonstrated its limits where the offending is grave: the court noted that mitigation was ‘qualified to some extent’ by the appellant’s attitude in the pre-sentence report and a further offence in the intervening period.
Practitioners representing children and young adults sentenced for historic offending should ensure that the sentencing court expressly identifies what the sentence would have been had the child been dealt with close to the time of the offence, as required by Ahmed. Full sentencing notes should reference the children and young people guideline, any relevant youth-specific offence guideline, and address the child’s age, maturity, role, and vulnerability at the time of offending. Evidence of positive progress during any period of delay remains critical to maximising its mitigating effect.