There have been a number of recent developments concerning the sentencing of youths in the first half of 2016 with a shift towards recognising that children and young people should be treated differently when being sentenced. These include the publication in May of the new Crown Court Compendium on Sentencing with specific guidance on the sentencing of children. This was followed by the Sentencing Council’s consultation on their definitive guideline on sentencing youths. The Court of Appeal has also emphasised the importance of treating youths differently in two recent unreported cases.
Details
The new Crown Court Compendium usefully puts all the court’s sentencing powers in one place, and therefore deals with the different powers the court has for children of different ages, including the different requirements for sentencing those aged 18-21 to custody (as the requirements for sentencing to detention in a young offender’s institute differ from sentencing to adult custody). The compendium focuses on the court’s powers on sentencing, it does not give specific guidance or deal with some of the important factors in sentencing young people therefore the Sentencing Council’s Overarching Principles – Sentencing Youths remains essential reading.
The Sentencing Council is currently reviewing the Overarching Principles, the consultation has now closed and responses to their consultation are being considered. The draft guidance is available on the sentencing council website here. The new guidance provides practical advice about allocation, and contains flowcharts as to the allocation decisions to be made when youths are charged with adults. The tone of the guideline is largely unchanged, and urges sentencers to take a different approach to sentencing children rather than adults, taking an individualistic approach with a greater focus on their welfare and rehabilitation.
In the case of R v E, 1 the Court replaced a 32 month sentence in a young offender institution with a 18 month Youth Rehabilitation Order, and in doing so stressed the need to have regard to the individualistic approach and rehabilitative aim of the youth justice system, in particular the prevention of offending; the welfare of the offender and the desire to avoid criminalising young people. The appeal court found that E, who was 14 and pleaded guilty to rape, lacked maturity and failed to appreciate the impact of his conduct. Given the individual circumstances of him and the facts of the offence the judge should have followed the recommendation of the youth offending team in the pre sentence report.
In another recent case, R v Robert Gibson,2 the court stated again that where an offender turns 18, the court should consider the age of the offender at the time when the offence was committed. In this case the judge had failed to take this into account, and also the principle that when sentencing young offenders the court has a duty to impose the least severe sentence.
Commentary
The Sentencing Council’s Overarching Principles – Sentencing Youths remains essential reading when sentencing children. It maybe helpful for practitioners to make themselves familiar with the draft Sentencing Council Overarching Principles ahead of it’s official publication available here.
Practitioners should also refer to the Crown Court Compendium on Sentencing when representing youths at sentencing hearings in the Crown Court as it is intended to replace all of the guidance previously provided by the Judicial College and its predecessor the Judicial Studies Board. However, there are a couple of omissions see our legal update here. The Youth Court Bench Book will similarly assist practitioners in the youth court by providing an overview of sentencing powers.
Court of Appeal, 26 May 2016, unreportedCourt of Appeal, 24 June 2016, unreported