Extended Sentences for Children: Dangerousness Confirmed and DTOs Cannot Run Concurrently with an Extended Sentence (R v TJ [2025] EWCA Crim 1391)

Extended Sentences for Children: Dangerousness Confirmed and DTOs Cannot Run Concurrently with an Extended Sentence (R v TJ [2025] EWCA Crim 1391)

Introduction

This commentary analyses the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) decision in R v TJ [2025] EWCA Crim 1391, handed down on 4 November 2025. The appellant, TJ, was a youth aged 16 at the time of appeal and had committed a series of violent and acquisitive offences at ages 13 and 15, culminating in a very serious s.18 grievous bodily harm with intent.

The appeal challenged the overall sentence of 7 years 4 months (comprising a custodial term of 4 years 4 months and a 3-year extended licence) on two grounds:

  • Ground 1: The Recorder wrongly sentenced a child by applying an adult-centric methodology, leading to an excessive custodial term.
  • Ground 2: The Recorder erred in finding TJ “dangerous” and imposing an extended sentence of detention.

The case raises two distinct strands of interest:

  • Substantive: How courts should assess “dangerousness” and public protection in youth sentencing—particularly where the offender has limited prior convictions but exhibits extreme violence.
  • Technical/Structural: How to lawfully construct sentences for children—specifically, the incompatibility of Detention and Training Orders (DTOs) with an Extended Sentence of Detention (EDS) and the inapplicability of Young Offender Institution (YOI) sentences where the offender is under 18 at conviction.

The Court delivered its ruling in accessible language addressed directly to the child, a notable and commendable practice in youth justice. Reporting restrictions were imposed: a s.45 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (YJCEA) order protecting the identity of the appellant until age 18, and a lifetime anonymity order for the young victim of one robbery (“C”).

Summary of the Judgment

  • The Court rejected Ground 1: the Recorder’s approach to sentencing a child was not flawed. He properly applied the Sentencing Council’s youth guideline and considered TJ’s background and welfare.
  • The Court rejected the core of Ground 2: notwithstanding TJ’s youth and limited record, the Recorder was entitled to find him “dangerous” and to impose an extended sentence of detention for the s.18 GBH with intent. The Court emphasised the extreme violence, the pattern of unprovoked attacks, and the probation assessment of risk.
  • However, the Court identified and corrected several technical errors:
    • YOI sentences are not available where the offender is under 18 at conviction (Sentencing Act 2020, s.262).
    • Children should receive DTOs (Sentencing Act 2020, s.234) for ordinary custodial disposals; the minimum DTO length is 4 months (s.236), so a 4-week term was unlawful.
    • For children, the proper terminology is “detention,” not “imprisonment,” for determinate custodial terms.
    • Crucially, DTOs cannot be made concurrent with an extended sentence. Because of that incompatibility, the Court quashed the concurrent DTOs and substituted “no separate penalty” on the non-lead counts.
  • The total sentence therefore remains an extended sentence of detention of 7 years 4 months (custodial term: 4 years 4 months; extension: 3 years). The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent necessary to cure technical unlawfulness.

Analysis

Factual context and sentencing background

TJ committed six offences across two time periods:

  • At age 13: an unprovoked assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) on a bus passenger, threatened with being stabbed.
  • At age 15 (same day sequence):
    • A ferocious s.18 GBH with intent and intentional strangulation of an adult man (Mr Hood), captured on CCTV and resulting in a 3-month hospitalisation and long-term impairment.
    • Robbery of a 16-year-old (“C”), accompanied by threats and subsequent knife-waving at his school, triggering a lockdown; and possession of a bladed article on school premises (convicted after trial).
    • Robbery at a mobile phone repair shop involving group intimidation and throwing heavy objects; theft of goods.

The Recorder selected the s.18 as the lead offence, indicating a notional adult sentence of 13 years’ imprisonment, then reducing by half for youth and by one-third for guilty plea to reach a 4 years 4 months custodial term. He also found TJ dangerous and imposed an extended licence of 3 years.

Precedents cited and their influence

  • R v Lang [2005] EWCA Crim 2864 (cited in the judgment text): Lang remains the leading authority on the assessment of “dangerousness” under the dangerous offender provisions. It emphasises:
    • “Significant risk of serious harm” is a forward-looking public protection test, not a back-door aggravation of punishment.
    • Courts must assess risk case-by-case, considering the index offence(s), pattern of behaviour, and relevant background.
    • Particular caution with young offenders: immaturity, impulsivity, and maturation can affect risk profiles.
  • R v CW [2020] EWCA Crim 1970: This authority underscores that extended sentences for children should be approached cautiously. Youths can change as they mature, and limited criminal records may mitigate findings of enduring dangerousness. Yet CW does not preclude EDS for youths; rather, it demands a careful and evidence-based assessment.

In TJ, the Court expressly considered these authorities (brought to their attention by the defence) and applied their principles. The Court accepted the general caution urged by Lang and CW but held that the facts—three unprovoked attacks in one day, including an exceptionally serious s.18 with multiple stamps to the head of a prone victim—supported the Recorder’s finding that TJ posed a significant risk of serious harm. The probation assessment of dangerousness reinforced this conclusion.

Legal reasoning

1) Dangerousness and extended sentences for children

The Court reiterated core elements of the dangerousness test in youth cases:

  • Public protection is the central purpose; the question is whether the offender presents a significant risk of serious harm in the future.
  • Youth and limited convictions are relevant, and the possibility of maturation and change is real. That said, the index offending can itself demonstrate high risk where it reveals extreme violence, persistence, and indifference to vulnerability.
  • Professional assessments (e.g., probation or psychiatric reports) inform but do not dictate the judicial conclusion.

Applying that framework, the Court upheld the EDS for the s.18 count. The violence was “exceptionally serious,” repeated, and directed to the head of a defenceless victim, coupled with further unprovoked offending the same day and a prior machete possession. The Court acknowledged TJ’s trauma and likely ADHD (and his engagement with support), but concluded those factors did not negate a present significant risk of serious harm.

2) The youth sentencing framework: methodology and language

The Court confirmed the Recorder did not inappropriately “sentence as an adult.” The Recorder:

  • Anchored the sentence in the offence seriousness (s.18) while applying the Sentencing Council’s youth guidelines.
  • Used an adult notional sentence as a heuristic starting point but then adjusted for age and guilty plea—recognising that youth sentencing is not a purely mathematical exercise.
  • Kept TJ’s personal mitigation and background at the forefront, consistent with the statutory emphasis on welfare and rehabilitation for children.

The Court nonetheless corrected technical language and disposal forms to reflect the youth framework:

  • Children must not be sentenced to detention in a Young Offender Institution (YOI) where they are under 18 at conviction (Sentencing Act 2020, s.262).
  • For ordinary custodial terms for children, the correct disposal is a Detention and Training Order (DTO) under s.234 SA 2020, subject to a minimum duration of 4 months (s.236). A 4-week term is unlawful.
  • For children, determinate custodial terms should be recorded as “detention” rather than “imprisonment.”

3) Critical structural point: DTOs cannot run concurrently with an Extended Sentence of Detention

The Court endorsed an agreed position between prosecution and defence that DTOs cannot lawfully run concurrently with an extended sentence. DTOs have a distinct statutory regime (including a prescribed split between detention and supervision in the community) that is incompatible with the structure of an EDS (custodial term plus extended licence for public protection).

To resolve the unlawfulness without disturbing the justified extended sentence on the lead count, the Court:

  • Quashed the concurrent custodial sentences on the non-lead counts (ABH, intentional strangulation, possession of a bladed article on school premises, both robberies).
  • Substituted “no separate penalty” for those counts.
  • Left intact the extended sentence of detention under s.254 SA 2020 on the s.18 count, with a custodial term of 4 years 4 months and an extension period of 3 years.

This preserves the total effective sentence while ensuring every component is lawful and internally coherent.

Impact and significance

A. Immediate practical effects

  • Clear reminder: if a child receives an Extended Sentence of Detention on a lead count, concurrent DTOs on other counts are not permissible. Practitioners should consider either:
    • “No separate penalty” on the ancillary counts; or
    • Where appropriate and lawful, alternative youth detention powers compatible with the EDS regime (bearing in mind the statutory architecture and any charging/sentencing strategy adopted in the Crown Court).
  • Judges must verify the offender’s age at conviction to avoid unlawful YOI sentences.
  • Sentencing remarks should use the correct terminology (“detention,” not “imprisonment”) for children.

B. Substantive guidance on dangerousness for youths

  • The decision confirms that neither youth nor a short record of prior convictions precludes a finding of dangerousness where the offending itself demonstrates a significant risk of serious harm.
  • The Court reaffirmed that the public protection test is prospective and evidence-based. A child’s adverse background, neurodiversity, and trauma will be weighed, but may be outweighed by persistent, extreme violence.
  • Nevertheless, the judgment encourages engagement with support and acknowledges that children can change, preserving hope and reinforcing the rehabilitative aim of youth sentencing even within an EDS framework.

C. Procedural and drafting discipline

  • Where there is a risk of technical error, the Court will correct the form of sentence without altering the justified overall length.
  • Practitioners should be alive to the reporting restriction powers: s.45 YJCEA orders for youth defendants and the availability of lifetime reporting restrictions for victims/witnesses where appropriate.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Extended Sentence of Detention (EDS):
    • A sentence available for certain violent/sexual offences where the court finds a significant risk of serious harm.
    • It comprises a custodial term (punishment) plus an “extension period” on licence (public protection/monitoring). For children, this is “extended detention.”
  • Dangerousness:
    • A legal assessment of whether the offender poses a significant risk of causing serious harm by committing further specified offences.
    • It looks forward, drawing on the nature of the index offences, any pattern of behaviour, and professional assessments.
  • Detention and Training Order (DTO):
    • A youth custodial sentence with a minimum length of 4 months. It splits the term between detention and supervised training in the community.
    • DTOs have a distinct release/supervision structure that does not fit alongside an EDS; hence they cannot run concurrently with an extended sentence.
  • No Separate Penalty:
    • A legitimate sentencing outcome where the court records a conviction but imposes no additional penalty. It is often used where another sentence adequately reflects the overall criminality.
  • Reporting Restrictions:
    • s.45 YJCEA 1999 protects the identity of youth defendants until they are 18.
    • The court may also impose lifetime anonymity for victims or witnesses where justified by statute; in this case, the child victim “C” received lifetime protection from identification.

Practical guidance for practitioners

  • Age at conviction governs availability of YOI sentences; under 18 at conviction means no YOI disposal.
  • When imposing an EDS on a child:
    • Do not add concurrent DTOs. Consider “no separate penalty” on ancillary counts, or structure the indictment/sentencing so that only the lead specified offence carries the custodial weight.
    • Check the precise statutory language: “detention” (not “imprisonment”) for children.
  • Dangerousness assessments for youths should:
    • Engage with the Sentencing Council guideline for children and young people and the principles in Lang and CW.
    • Balance maturation prospects and neurodiversity/trauma against the index offending and risk indicators.
    • Use professional assessments (probation/psychiatry) but retain an independent judicial evaluation.
  • Maintain strict compliance with reporting restrictions in all communications (including judgments, media, and social media).

Conclusion

R v TJ [2025] EWCA Crim 1391 serves two important functions. First, it restates and applies the dangerousness jurisprudence to a youth offender, confirming that an Extended Sentence of Detention can be justified even for children with limited prior convictions when the offending displays exceptional violence and a significant risk of serious harm. Secondly—and of broader day-to-day significance for youth courts and the Crown Court—it clarifies key structural rules of youth sentencing:

  • Children under 18 at conviction must not receive YOI sentences.
  • DTOs carry a statutory minimum of 4 months and cannot be imposed concurrently with an extended sentence.
  • For children, the proper terminology is “detention,” not “imprisonment.”

The Court’s corrective approach—quashing the unlawful concurrent youth custodial terms and substituting “no separate penalty”—preserved the lawfulness of the sentencing package without diluting necessary public protection. The judgment offers clear, practical guidance to ensure sentences for children are both substantively justified and technically sound, while modelling accessible judicial communication in youth cases and reinforcing essential reporting restrictions designed to protect children in the justice system.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)

Comments