Extended Determinate Sentencing of Dangerous Juvenile Manslaughter Offenders under the Sentencing Act 2020

Introduction

This commentary reviews the Court of Appeal’s decision in Haroon, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 466, handed down on 2 April 2025. The appellant, who was 18 at conviction but 16 at the time of the offence, was convicted of manslaughter after a brutal street-corner attack on a vulnerable, intoxicated 61-year-old victim. At first instance, the Crown Court imposed an extended determinate sentence of 14 years’ detention (9 years’ custodial term plus a 5-year extended licence) under section 266 of the Sentencing Act 2020. Leave to appeal was refused by a single judge. The appellant renewed his application before the full Court of Appeal, challenging (1) the classification of the offence as Category B rather than Category C under the Manslaughter Guideline; (2) the imposition of an extended determinate sentence; and (3) the weight afforded to mitigation, including PTSD, youth, remorse, and evidence of progress in custody.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal unanimously refused leave to appeal. It held:

The trial judge was entitled to classify the offence as Category B high-culpability manslaughter because the kicking of a defenceless man’s head with a shod foot carried a high risk of really serious harm.
The judge properly applied the dangerousness test under section 266 of the Sentencing Act 2020, having found on extensive factual and expert material that the appellant posed a significant risk of serious harm to the public.
An extended determinate sentence was justified because a plain determinate sentence would not adequately protect the public.
The judge fairly weighed the mitigating factors (age, youth discount, PTSD, remorse, background) and exercised his sentencing discretion within the appropriate guideline range.

Analysis

1. Precedents and Guideline Materials Cited

The Court did not rely on named appellate authorities but grounded its reasoning entirely in statutory and guideline sources:

Sentencing Act 2020, section 266: The statutory scheme for extended determinate sentences where an offender is found “dangerous.”
Manslaughter Definitive Guideline (Sentencing Council, 2018): Defines culpability categories A–D, sets starting points and ranges.
Sentencing Children and Young People Guideline (Sentencing Council, 2018), paragraphs 6.2–6.3: Instructs how to adjust sentencing when a juvenile crosses the adult threshold during proceedings—starting from the date of offence but applying adult sentencing purposes.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal endorsed each stage of the trial judge’s reasoning:

Culpability Assessment: Kicking the head of a prone victim with a shod foot, causing a fatal subdural haematoma, fell “squarely into Category B,” entailing an intention to cause harm falling just short of really serious harm, and a high obvious risk of death or grievous bodily harm.
Dangerousness Finding: Under section 266, the judge considered:

The pre-sentence report’s conclusion that the appellant presented a high risk of serious harm when free in the community and medium risk in custody.
Psychiatric evidence of ongoing PTSD, gang culture, prior violent offences, and demonstrated pattern of escalation.
The appellant’s conduct on bail for a drug offence supplying Class A, and continued offending (e.g., possession of a bladed article).

The Court upheld the finding that the public could not be adequately protected by a determinate sentence alone.

Extended Determinate Sentence: The judge’s proportionality analysis—balancing youth discount (25 per cent off the 12-year Category B starting point) against public protection—led to a 9-year custodial term plus 5-year extension. The Court considered that choice was within range and in accordance with the statutory purposes of sentencing.
Weight of Mitigation: The Court confirmed that the judge “carefully and expressively” considered PTSD, youth, remorse and positive institutional behaviour, but was entitled to give them less weight in light of the gravity of the assault and the appellant’s violent history.

3. Potential Impact

This decision provides important guidance in three respects:

Youth and Dangerousness: It confirms that crossing the age of 18 during proceedings does not immunise a young offender from adult sentencing purposes if found dangerous.
Extended Determinate Sentences: It illustrates the rigorous two-stage process (dangerousness finding, then necessity for extension) and underscores that a determinate sentence may be insufficient to protect the public.
Culpability Classification: It demonstrates deference to trial judges on the facts when classifying manslaughter doubt and clarifies that assaults on defenceless victims invoking head-kicks usually fall in Category B.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Extended Determinate Sentence: A fixed custodial term plus an extended licence period where the offender is deemed “dangerous” and may be recalled for the extended portion if they re-offend.
(Section 266, Sentencing Act 2020.)
Category B Manslaughter: An unlawful and dangerous act intended to cause some harm falling short of really serious harm, but carrying a high risk of death or grievous bodily harm.
Dangerousness Test: A two-part inquiry: (1) has the offender committed a specified serious offence? (2) does the offender pose a significant risk of serious harm to the public?
Youth Discount: A reduction (up to 25 per cent) applied when sentencing an offender under 18 at the time of offence, even if sentenced as an adult.

Conclusion

R v Haroon crystallises the modern framework for sentencing juvenile offenders who commit gravely violent offences and are found to be dangerous. It confirms the high threshold for re-categorising manslaughter culpability on appeal, the rigorous application of extended determinate sentences under section 266, and the limited scope for appellate interference when a trial judge has properly balanced youth mitigation against public protection. Future courts will look to this decision when addressing the intersection of youth justice, public safety, and the statutory scheme for dangerous offenders.