R v. Murray (Joel James) [2017] EWCA Crim 2992, [2017] Cr.App.R. (S.) 49(8)
The Court of Appeal agreed that the fact that a 17 year-old (19 years at the time of sentencing) had grown up in a household where significant drug dealing was an accepted part of life, if not a way of life, was a relevant factor when sentencing.
Details
Joel Murray appealed against a total sentence of seven years’ detention imposed following his pleas of guilty to two counts of being concerned in the making of an offer to supply cocaine, and two counts of possessing ecstasy and cannabis with intent to supply. Murray committed the first pair of offences when he was 17. He committed the second pair of offences while on bail in respect of the first, and by that stage he had turned 18.
The court ruled that the sentence for the first pair of offences (three years) was too long, principally because it did not pay sufficient regard to Murray’s age. The court also accepted that it was apparent that Murray had grown up in a household where significant drug dealing was an accepted part of life, if not a way of life. It stated that when sentencing a young offender who was under 18 at the time of offending, that sort of background was a relevant factor, and it had the effect of reducing Murray’s culpability to some degree.
Discussion
This ruling highlights the importance of gaining relevant information about a child’s background in order to get the best sentencing outcome for the child. The Sentencing Council’s recently updated definitive guidance on Sentencing Children and Young People require Courts to take the child’s background into account. Relevant background information should be sought from the child themselves, from family members/carers and from other professionals including YOT workers and social workers. Expert reports may be needed if the child has mental health or other difficulties that may have a bearing on their reasons for committing the crime.