R v HBF [2025] EWCA Crim 1282: Court of Appeal endorses adult‑equivalent cross‑check and permits a sub‑half youth benchmark where custody is inevitable

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

Neutral citation: [2025] EWCA Crim 1282

Judgment date: 19 September 2025

Judge: Mr Justice Wall

Introduction

This renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence concerns the appropriate approach to sentencing an exceptionally young offender—13 at the time of the offences, 14 at sentence—for grave knife-enabled sexual assaults and an attempted robbery. The case situates itself at the intersection of youth justice principles (rehabilitation, last resort custody) and the undeniable seriousness of repeat knife-enabled offending against lone women at night.

The applicant pleaded guilty to: - two counts of sexual assault, - one count of attempted robbery, and - four counts of possessing a bladed article (no separate penalties).

The Crown Court imposed concurrent terms of 3 years 6 months’ detention under section 250 of the Sentencing Code (“SC”) for each sexual assault and for the attempted robbery. The central complaint on appeal was that the judge sentenced “as if the applicant were a small adult,” allegedly failing to follow the Sentencing Council’s five-step youth approach and to give sufficient weight to age and developmental immaturity.

Two statutory reporting restrictions were expressly engaged and reaffirmed: anonymity for the child defendant under section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 until he turns 18, and lifetime anonymity for complainants under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992.

Summary of the Judgment

Leave refused. The Court of Appeal rejected the criticism that the sentencing judge “adultified” the child. The sentence was not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.
Five-step youth guideline followed in substance. The judge’s remarks demonstrated proper engagement with the Sentencing Council’s children and young people guidelines, even though he did not rigidly lay out each step in sequence.
Custody was inevitable. Knife-enabled, planned, repeat offending against lone female victims at night—causing profound harm—plainly crossed the custody threshold; community management was not viable on the pre-sentence evidence.
Adult-equivalent cross-check approved. The judge identified an adult total of 8 years 4 months (after full guilty-plea reduction), then applied a significantly greater youth discount than the usual 15–17 age range, settling on about 40% of the adult term (3 years 6 months).
DTO not required. A 2‑year detention and training order (DTO) would be insufficient punishment and protection given the gravity of the offending; section 250 SC detention was justified.
Proportionality and totality observed. Concurrency was used; no separate penalties for the bladed article counts.

Detailed Analysis

1) Framework: statutory and guideline context

Section 45 YJCEA 1999 (anonymity for youths): Prohibits publication of details likely to identify the youth defendant until age 18.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 (victim anonymity): Lifetime anonymity for complainants of sexual offences unless lawfully lifted or waived.
Section 250 Sentencing Code (detention for serious offences of children/young persons): Enables custodial sentences beyond the DTO cap where the offending is sufficiently serious; the Crown Court used s.250 for each sexual assault and the attempted robbery.
Sentencing Council guidelines engaged: - Sentencing Children and Young People (Overarching Guideline), - Sentencing Children and Young People – Sexual Offences, - Robbery guideline, - Totality guideline.
Bench Book (youth in the Crown Court): The sentencing judge re-read the Bench Book material on young defendants, reinforcing youth-sensitive procedures.

2) The five-step youth approach and how it was applied

The judge said he would apply the five-step approach for sexual offences by children and young people. The steps are:

Determine seriousness by reference to the nature of the offence.
Take account of offence aggravating and mitigating features.
Consider personal mitigation (age, maturity, vulnerabilities, etc.).
Apply credit for a guilty plea.
Review the sentence, including use of adult guidelines if custody is inevitable, to ensure overall proportionality.

On appeal, the court accepted that, although the judge did not set out each step in strict sequence at the outset, he clearly: - assessed seriousness and the aggravating/mitigating matrix, - weighed personal mitigation (age 13; learning difficulties; ADHD indicators; developmental immaturity; poor decision-making; impulsivity), - gave credit for guilty pleas, and - reviewed the outcome against adult guidelines to cross-check proportionality.

Key clarification: The five-step approach must be followed in substance; there is no requirement to ritualistically recite each step verbatim if the reasoning transparently covers the ground.

3) Adult-equivalent cross‑check and the youth discount

A central feature of the judge’s method was to identify an adult-equivalent sentence and then apply a youth discount.

Adult baseline: The judge concluded the adult total would have been 8 years 4 months (after full guilty-plea reduction).
Youth baseline: The Sentencing Council suggests that for 15–17 year-olds a sentence might be between one-half and two-thirds of the adult term. The applicant was younger (13) and developmentally immature. The judge therefore gave a greater reduction than the 15–17 range and imposed about 40% of the adult term (3 years 6 months).

Principle affirmed: When custody for a child is inevitable, it is permissible and appropriate to use the adult guideline as a yardstick at Step 5 and to apply a sub-half youth ratio where the offender is significantly younger than 15 and/or developmentally immature. The court endorsed a 40% of adult term in this case as proportionate to age and personal mitigation, balanced against gravity.

4) Aggravating and mitigating features: weighting and balance

Aggravation (as identified by the Court of Appeal):

Significant planning and deliberate concealment of identity (dark clothing, hood up).
Knife used on each occasion; threats, including threat to kill if the victim screamed.
Targeting lone women at night—acutely vulnerable victims in public settings.
Repeat offending over a short period; escalating pattern culminating in sexual assaults.
Substantial, enduring harm to victims, evidenced by compelling impact statements (loss of security, fear, depression, nightmares, altered life patterns).

Mitigation (accepted and given real weight):

Very young age (13) at time of offending; 14 at sentence.
Learning difficulties; language/communication deficits; indications of ADHD; impulsivity; poor judgment.
Guilty pleas.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge properly weighed these factors and was “well aware of the approach” required when sentencing a child. The gravity of the offending and lack of viable community management justified custody notwithstanding the powerful youth mitigation.

5) DTO versus section 250 detention: last resort and sufficiency

The judge expressly considered whether a community disposal or a 2-year DTO could be imposed. He concluded—rightly, according to the Court of Appeal—that neither would sufficiently reflect the seriousness, nor address risk and punishment. The pre-sentence report assessed a medium risk of reoffending and concluded the applicant could not be safely managed in the community. The Court reiterated that, although custody for a child is a last resort, this was one of those exceptional cases where custody was “inevitable.”

Principle reinforced: The statutory DTO cap (maximum 24 months) does not operate as a mandatory ceiling in grave youth offending; where the grave-crime power (here section 250 SC) is available and justified by seriousness and protection of the public, longer detention can and should be imposed.

6) Totality and concurrency

Concurrency was ordered for the sexual assaults and the attempted robbery, yielding a single total of 3 years 6 months. No separate penalties were imposed for the four bladed article offences, evidencing application of the Totality guideline: the overall sentence must be just and proportionate to the offending as a whole, avoiding double-counting of knife use in the lead offences.

7) The appellate test: “manifestly excessive” and error of principle

The Court of Appeal reiterated its limited intervention role. It will only interfere if a sentence is wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. Here, the judge: - applied the correct youth framework, - made a justified finding that custody was unavoidable, - conducted a transparent adult-equivalent cross-check, - gave an enhanced youth reduction to reflect age and immaturity, - considered and rejected DTO after reasoned analysis, and - arrived at a proportionate total.

On any view, the total could not be called manifestly excessive. Indeed, the Court observed that an adult would likely have received a significantly higher term (and might have attracted a dangerousness finding and an extended sentence).

8) Precedents cited (and the Court’s reliance on guidelines)

No prior case authorities were cited in the judgment. The Court’s reasoning was anchored in the Sentencing Council’s guidelines for children and young people (including the specific sexual offences and robbery guidelines), the Totality guideline, and the statutory scheme. The absence of case citations underscores that the principles applied here flow directly from the definitive guidelines and statutory powers.

Impact and Significance

This decision carries several important implications for youth sentencing practice:

Adult-equivalent cross-check normalized. Sentencers may continue to identify an adult sentence and then derive a youth sentence by applying a principled discount at Step 5 where custody is unavoidable. This case confirms that approach and gives a concrete data point.
Sub-half youth ratio approved for very young offenders. For 13–14-year-olds (especially where developmental immaturity is evidenced), a sentence as low as ~40% of the adult equivalent can be appropriate, even for grave offences. This provides a benchmark advocates can use, while recognising that gravity may still necessitate substantial custody.
No ritual incantation of steps required. The five-step youth framework must be followed, but judges are not obliged to structure their remarks step-by-step if their reasoning plainly addresses each component.
DTO is not a mandatory ceiling in grave cases. Where section 250 SC applies and the gravity of the offending demands it, sentences beyond the DTO cap are legitimate and may be necessary—particularly in knife-enabled sexual assaults and robberies.
Risk and manageability matter. Evidence that a child “cannot be properly managed in the community” will strongly support a custody conclusion notwithstanding age and vulnerabilities; practitioners seeking to avoid custody must be prepared with robust, credible community packages addressing risk and needs.
Knife-enabled predation on lone women treated with exceptional seriousness. The Court’s language reflects the heightened gravity of weapon-enabled, planned, repeat offending in public spaces against lone women, and the profound harm that follows.
Record-keeping best practice. Sentencers should continue to: - identify the adult-equivalent total (post-plea), - explain the youth discount and why it is more/less than the 15–17 benchmark, - address DTO explicitly, and - show application of totality.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 45 YJCEA anonymity: Protects the identity of a child defendant until 18; publications cannot include identifying details.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992: Gives lifetime anonymity to complainants of sexual offences—no identifying publication unless lawfully lifted or waived.
Section 250 Sentencing Code detention: A power allowing the Crown Court to detain a child for serious offences (beyond the normal DTO maximum) where warranted by gravity.
DTO (Detention and Training Order): A custodial sentence for youths with a maximum length of 24 months; not suitable for the gravest cases requiring longer detention.
Adult-equivalent cross-check: A technique used at the review stage (Step 5) to gauge proportionality: estimate the adult sentence, then apply an age/maturity discount to derive the youth sentence.
Youth discount: A reduction on the adult-equivalent to reflect age, developmental maturity, and prospects for rehabilitation. For 15–17-year-olds, a sentence between half and two-thirds of the adult term is often cited; for younger or less mature children, an even lower proportion may be justified.
Totality: Ensures the overall sentence for multiple offences is just and proportionate, often by making terms concurrent and avoiding double-counting of aggravating features.
Manifestly excessive: The appellate standard; a sentence is interfered with only if clearly outside the reasonable range or wrong in principle.
Custody as a last resort (for children): The principle that imprisonment/detention should be used only when no alternative is suitable—yet the most serious cases can and do cross that threshold.
Dangerousness (adult comparison): For adults, some serious sexual/violent offending may lead to “extended sentences” for public protection; the Court noted an adult in this case might well have faced such a regime, underscoring comparative gravity.

Conclusion

R v HBF confirms and clarifies several key aspects of youth sentencing in grave cases. First, judges are entitled to use the adult-equivalent sentence as a Step 5 cross-check and to calibrate the youth sentence accordingly. Secondly, where the offender is exceptionally young and developmentally immature, the proportion can fall below half of the adult term; here, circa 40% was upheld. Thirdly, DTO is not an obligatory limit in such cases; section 250 detention may properly be imposed when the seriousness and public protection imperatives demand it. Finally, the Court emphasised substance over form: what matters is that the youth guideline is genuinely applied, that custody is treated as a last resort, and that the total outcome is transparent, proportionate, and justified.

Against sustained, knife-enabled sexual and acquisitive offending that left multiple victims with life-altering harms, the sentence of 3 years 6 months was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive. This judgment will serve as a practical guide for sentencers and advocates on how to structure reasoning in comparable cases and how to translate adult guidelines into proportionate youth outcomes.

Note on reporting restrictions: This case engages section 45 YJCEA 1999 (anonymity for the child defendant until 18) and the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 (lifetime anonymity for complainants). No publication should include material likely to identify the defendant or the complainants, unless lawfully lifted or waived under the statute.