R v M Bradley [2024] EWCA Crim 1502 addresses the importance of Crown Court Judges expressly considering the guidelines on Sentencing Children and Young People and the Totality Guidelines when sentencing young people for offences they committed as children.
Key Links
R -v- M Bradley [2024] EWCA Crim 1502
Sentencing Children and Young People Guidelines
Details
MB was sentenced on 2 April 2024 aged 20 for offences of theft of a motor vehicle, aggravated vehicle taking and robbery. The offence of robbery was committed when MB was unconvicted and aged 16 years and 1 month. MB was given a sentence of 4 years detention in a young offender’s institution.
This article focuses on the appeal in relation to the robbery that MB committed when he was 16 in 2020.
MB (and a number of other individuals) barged into the flat of an individual (OH) who had a complex neurodevelopment issue. They stated that they were looking for someone. MB and his co-defendant, KL, 18, were the last to leave and before doing so, stated that unless they found the person they were looking for they would take OH’s Xbox. OH tried to stop them, but MB threatened OH with a hoover pipe and said that if he told anyone he would be stabbed. A witness saw MB and KL leave the flat and reported them to the police (paragraph 2).
Whilst the robbery case was working its way through the court system, MB had accrued a number of other convictions. By the point of sentencing, they included:
- Possessing an offensive weapon in a public place and assault occasioning actual bodily harm (committed 5 months before the robbery);
- Theft from a motor vehicle (committed 3 days before the robbery);
- A series of thefts and interference with motor vehicles between August and September 2020 (20 days after the robbery);
- Theft from a motor vehicle (committed 1.5 months after the robbery)
In total, MB had ten convictions for 38 offences (paragraph 4) a youth rehabilitation order with curfew and tagging requirements was initially ordered but later replaced with a detention and training order of 4 months.
During this time, the 2020 Robbery case was not included in the above sentence as it had only had a preliminary hearing, a video recording and cross-examination. However, there had been an adjournment of the trial because of a lack of court time during the pandemic (paragraph 7).
On 11 July 2023, MB, aged 19, then went on to steal a Renault Clio, and, on 13 July 2023, MB stole a van and in an attempt to flee the scene, collided with metal fencing. MB attempted to make off from the van but was located by a Police Dog Unit (paragraphs 5 and 6).
On 5 August, MB, aged 19, changed his plea to guilty for an offence of aggravated vehicle taking in respect of the work van and on 18 September 2023, MB, pleaded guilty to the theft of the Renault Cleo and he was committed for sentence. After this time, on 22 January 2024, MB also changed his plea to guilty for the robbery offence he committed in 2020 (paragraph 7).
Sentencing
At the sentencing hearing on 2 April 2024, the Judge recorded that he had been asked to give MB a chance but that it was apparent from the history that ‘he had been given many chances’ and decided that the only sentence which could be imposed was custody (paragraph 9). Considering the guidelines, the Judge decided that:
- The 2020 robbery was categorised as B2 and aggravated by previous convictions, but reduced for age. The sentence of 40 months was therefore reduced to 36 months to give credit for plea.
- The theft of the Renault was 18 months reduced to 12 months for a plea consecutive and the aggravated vehicle taking was 12 months reduced to 8 months for plea, to be served concurrently to take account of totality.
- That gave the total sentence of 4 years, half of which would be served with credit for time in custody, save for the period when he had been recalled on licence.
At appeal, MB argued that there were two issues with the judgment of the first instance court, namely that there was an:
- Excessive Sentence: The sentence was excessive given MB’s age at the time of the robbery offence. MB claimed that insufficient consideration was given to the fact that this offence predated MB’s other convictions and he did not appear before the Magistrates' Court until he was 18; and,
- Erroneous application of the Totality Guidelines: The sentencing court considered the totality of MB’s prior and subsequent convictions and there was insufficient consideration given to the fact that the robbery predated other convictions. For background, the totality guidelines are used in sentencing to ensure that when an offender is being sentenced for multiple offences, the overall sentence is fair and proportionate to the totality of their criminal behaviour. MB claimed that the sentence did not reflect the fact that he had been sentenced to custody for three other offences but which, if the MB had been sentenced at the same time, would have been reduced for totality.
Decision
The Court of Appeal found that the original sentence was excessive and that the appropriate sentence should have been 18 months custody, rather than the 3 years initially imposed and that the 18 months remains consecutive to the theft which was 1 year and therefore, gave an overall sentence of 2½ years' detention in a young offender institution (paragraph 17).
The court emphasised the importance of applying the Sentencing Council’s guidelines to ensure that the sentence was fair and proportionate.
Commentary
So… what does this case mean in practice?
The case highlights the importance of Judges considering the offender’s age and the principle of totality in sentencing decisions. Three key takeaways are:
- Reinforcement of the application of the Sentencing Children and Young Persons guidelines
Consideration should be given by Crown Court Judges to the offender's age at the time of both conviction and sentence. The relevant guidelines are the Sentencing Children and Young People Overarching Principles where the defendant was a child at the time of the offence, regardless of their age at the time of sentence. For further information on the sentencing process for children who turn 18 after the offence and prior to sentence, please see the YJLC Legal Guide on Turning 18.
2. Application of the Totality Principle
Judges should review and consider that the cumulative sentence is fair and proportionate reflecting the overall behaviour of the individual.
3. Proportionality
Judges should consider the maximum sentence that was available at, or shortly after the time of the offending, and the sentence that it considers was likely to have been imposed if the child offender had been sentenced shortly after the offence.