Solomon, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The applicant, initially aged 17, was convicted on 17 June 2019 at the Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames before Judge Davies on a joinder indictment comprising multiple offences including robbery, attempted theft, handling stolen goods, possession of offensive weapons, attempted grievous bodily harm with intent, and criminal damage. This is referred to as the first indictment.

Subsequently, on 2 March 2022, the applicant, then aged 20, was convicted before the same judge on a second joinder indictment including escape contrary to common law, attempted robbery, and robbery, referred to as the second indictment.

On 3 November 2022, the applicant, then aged 21, was sentenced to consecutive extended determinate sentences on specific counts from both indictments, comprising custodial terms totaling eight years and extended licence periods totaling four years. Concurrent shorter custodial terms were imposed for possession of offensive weapons, with no separate penalties for other offences. A previously imposed Youth Rehabilitation Order was revoked and re-sentencing ordered no separate penalty.

The applicant sought leave to appeal against sentence following refusal by a single judge. The appeal was considered with pro bono representation by Attorney Wright.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive, particularly in light of the applicant's age, mental health conditions, and personal mitigation.
2. Whether the sentencing judge properly applied the guideline for sentencing offenders with mental disorders, developmental disorders or neurological impairments.
3. Whether the totality principle was correctly applied in imposing sentences.
4. Whether the applicant was correctly found to be dangerous for the purposes of extended sentencing.
5. Whether jurisdictional errors were made in relation to the Youth Rehabilitation Order and the statutory basis and appropriateness of extended sentences imposed.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentence was manifestly excessive due to inadequate weight given to the applicant’s personal mitigation.
• The sentencing judge failed to properly apply the relevant guideline for offenders with mental disorders.
• The totality principle was not correctly applied in sentencing.
• The finding of dangerousness with respect to the 2019 offences was unjustified.
• The overall custodial term imposed was effectively equivalent to a 12-year adult sentence, which was disproportionate given the applicant’s youth.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent’s legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully reviewed the offences committed by the applicant, noting the serious and violent nature of the crimes, including multiple robberies, weapon possession, and an escape from custody. It acknowledged the applicant’s difficult background, diagnosed conditions including Autism Spectrum Disorder and ADHD, and assessed risks of reoffending and harm.

The sentencing judge applied definitive sentencing guidelines, including those for offenders with mental disorders, and considered the totality principle to impose just and proportionate sentences. The judge also considered the applicant’s youth at the time of offending and the aggravating factors such as the applicant’s prior convictions and the violent escalation demonstrated by offences committed shortly after escape from custody.

The court found the applicant’s submissions that the sentence was excessive unarguable, emphasizing that the overall sentence reflected the severity of the offences, the applicant’s antecedents, and the statutory requirements for extended sentences due to dangerousness.

However, the court identified jurisdictional errors: the Youth Rehabilitation Order revoked had already expired before the first conviction, the sentencing provisions cited were incorrect for the applicant’s age at conviction, and the imposition of custodial sentences for certain offences was beyond the judge’s power given the applicant’s age. The court therefore quashed and substituted sentences consistent with statutory provisions applicable to the applicant’s age and status.

The court also noted a procedural issue regarding the victim surcharge which could not be imposed due to the timing and effect of the appeal.

Holding and Implications

The court granted leave to appeal against sentence solely to the limited extent necessary to correct the identified jurisdictional errors in sentencing orders, including quashing and substituting sentences to conform with statutory age-related provisions and revoking an expired Youth Rehabilitation Order.

Otherwise, the court refused leave to appeal against sentence.

The direct effect is that the applicant’s sentences are adjusted to comply with legal requirements regarding age and sentencing powers, but the substantive custodial sentences and findings of dangerousness remain intact. No new precedent was established by this decision.