1) Introduction
This commentary concerns [2026] EWCA Crim 1017, an appeal against sentence in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
from the Crown Court at Harrow (Recorder Johal). The appellant, a middle-aged single parent with significant health issues and no previous
convictions, confronted a 14-year-old boy (anonymised as “G”) on the way to school, pinned him against a wall,
and made threats to kill while brandishing a screwdriver handed to him by a family member.
The key issues were: (i) the correct application of the Sentencing Council guideline for making threats to kill (culpability/harm categorisation
and movement within the range); (ii) the weight to be given to mitigation, including the impact on a dependent child; and (iii) whether the sentence
should be short enough to engage suspension (it was not).
The court (Lord Justice Fraser, Mrs Justice Cutts DBE, and His Honour Judge Field KC) also dealt at the outset with
reporting restrictions for the child victim under section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.
3) Analysis
3.1 Precedents Cited
No earlier authorities are cited by name in the judgment. The court nonetheless referred to “the authorities” requiring the sentencing court
to take into account the impact of immediate imprisonment on a dependent child. The decision therefore operates less as a
development of case-law by citation and more as an application of established sentencing principles, guideline methodology, and appellate review standards.
3.2 Legal Reasoning
A. Reporting restrictions: section 45 YJCEA 1999
The court treated anonymity as a live and continuing obligation. Even though a section 45 order had been made in the magistrates’ court and it was
unclear whether it was replicated in the Crown Court, the Court of Appeal made clear that section 45 applied and that reporting restrictions
extended to proceedings in both courts. Practically, this underlines that anonymity protections for children should not be assumed to “carry over” flawlessly
between jurisdictions without express confirmation.
B. Guideline application: A1 categorisation and the starting point
The appellant argued that the Recorder should have adjusted culpability to account for a “culpability C factor”. The Court of Appeal rejected that:
A1 was “undoubtedly correct” because (i) a visible weapon was used (a screwdriver brandished as a weapon) and
(ii) threats were made in the presence of children—indeed, to a child. Harm was properly category 1, given serious distress
and enduring impact (including fear of going out and disruption to schooling).
Importantly, the court accepted there were additional aggravating features that could have justified movement upwards within the range:
multiple offenders present/supportive family presence, the victim’s very young age, and the fact that there were two offences (threats to kill plus common assault),
with the assault treated as an aggravating feature under totality.
C. Why the sentence was still reduced: “starting point” is not a destination
Having acknowledged seriousness and aggravation, the court then identified substantial mitigation which, in its view, the Recorder’s final sentence
did not sufficiently reflect:
- No previous convictions (despite some prior cautions).
- Serious medical problems affecting the appellant.
- Family consequences: loss of the home and resulting homelessness for the appellant’s daughters.
- Dependence/caring responsibilities: the appellant was sole carer for a minor child (a factor the court stated it was obliged to consider).
- Remorse, albeit tempered by the fact the appellant contested the trial.
The court’s key move is methodological: even where the guideline points strongly to a severe sentence (A1/category 1), the judge must still perform the final
balancing exercise. Here, the Court of Appeal held that four years did not sufficiently account for mitigation and was therefore
manifestly excessive, warranting appellate substitution at three years.
D. Suspension: temporal rules and seriousness
The court noted that at the date of sentence only terms of 24 months or less could be suspended (the rule later changed in March 2026, but did not apply).
The court also made an evaluative point: even if suspension had been available, the nature of the offence—unprovoked street attack on a child with a screwdriver—would be a
weighty factor pointing towards immediate custody. After substitution, the term (three years) remained outside suspension eligibility in any event.
3.3 Impact
- Guideline discipline with real mitigation: the decision illustrates that courts may accept high culpability and harm (and even identify upward drivers) yet still reduce below the starting point where mitigation is genuinely weighty.
- Child-victim anonymity as a continuing judicial task: it is a reminder to ensure section 45 protections are explicitly in place at each stage and each court level.
- Family impact does not avoid custody, but can reduce term: the case reinforces that dependent-child impact will rarely displace immediate custody for serious violence/threats, but can materially affect sentence length.
- Appellate threshold applied: the court intervened only after concluding the sentence was manifestly excessive, consistent with restraint in sentencing appeals.