ART & Anor, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

Section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 restricts publication of identifying information relating to the applicants and the victim, all under 18. On 2 December 2022, Applicant 1 pleaded guilty to conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm with intent; Applicant 2 pleaded guilty to the same offence on 27 January 2023. Both were sentenced on 5 October 2023 to detention in a young offender institution for terms of 4 years and 3 years 9 months respectively, with ancillary orders. Both were aged 16 at the time of the offence and 17 at sentencing. Their applications for leave to appeal sentence were referred to the full court due to their young age.

On 10 August 2022, the victim's mother (V1) was confronted at home by six males, including the applicants and four co-accused, who were associated with a gang. The group sought to warn the victim's eldest son (V2, aged 15) that they intended to kill him, motivated by gang rivalry. The group was aggressive and remained at the property for 5 to 10 minutes before leaving. Police subsequently found the group nearby, seized their mobile phones, and recovered two machetes. Fingerprints of Applicant 1 were found on one machete. Phone evidence revealed planning and intent to attack V2 with knives, including arranging transportation and weapons acquisition. Following the offence, V2 and his family relocated due to safety concerns.

The Crown Court judge sentenced all six offenders together, categorising the offence as very serious with high culpability and serious intended harm. The judge applied the Sentencing Guideline for grievous bodily harm with intent, treating the offence as category 2A with a starting point of 7 years for adults, adjusted for the applicants’ youth and guilty pleas. Mitigating factors included the applicants’ age, lack of previous convictions, and efforts towards rehabilitation. The judge considered the Overarching Guideline on Sentencing Children and Young People, emphasizing rehabilitation and the youth justice system’s principal aim.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentences imposed on the applicants were manifestly excessive or wrong in principle, having regard to their age, rehabilitation prospects, and the seriousness of the offence.
2. Whether the sentencing judge properly applied the Overarching Guideline on Sentencing Children and Young People, including consideration of alternatives to detention such as a Youth Rehabilitation Order with Intensive Supervision and Surveillance (YRO with ISS).
3. Whether the judge adequately explained the rejection of non-custodial sentences in favour of detention.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant ART's Arguments

• The sentence was manifestly excessive.
• Insufficient weight was given to ART’s age, good character, and rehabilitation progress.
• The judge failed to properly consider the Pre-Sentence Report and its recommendation for a YRO with ISS.
• The judge focused unduly on punishment rather than rehabilitation, contrary to the Overarching Guideline.

Appellant AJB's Arguments

• The judge did not give sufficient weight to the Overarching Guideline principles.
• Failure to consider a YRO with ISS as an alternative and to provide reasons for rejecting it.
• AJB had rehabilitated through Youth Justice Service engagement and had positive employment prospects.
• Detention would harm AJB’s mental health and increase recidivism risk.

Respondent's Arguments

• The judge had the Overarching Guideline and relevant case law in mind.
• Considered the Pre-Sentence Reports adequately.
• Although not expressly stating reasons for rejecting YRO with ISS, the judge’s remarks made clear that detention was justified given the offence seriousness.
• Sentences were not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the sentencing judge’s approach against the Overarching Guideline on Sentencing Children and Young People, which stresses rehabilitation, individual assessment, and that custody is a last resort. The judge correctly identified the seriousness of the offence, categorised it under the appropriate guideline, and applied reductions for youth and guilty pleas. Although the judge did not explicitly cite certain guideline paragraphs, her remarks demonstrated she applied their substance.

The court noted the judge’s consideration of the Pre-Sentence Reports, which highlighted a significant risk of serious future harm, justifying detention over community sentences. The judge’s failure to expressly state reasons for rejecting a YRO with ISS was not fatal, as the overall sentencing remarks made clear the rationale. The court emphasised that the applicants’ pleas acknowledged their conspiracy to cause serious violence, and the evidence of weapons and gang-related context underscored the gravity.

Accordingly, the court found no material error or manifest excess in the sentences imposed and concluded the judge did not treat the applicants as mini-adults but applied the correct legal framework.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED LEAVE TO APPEAL against the sentences imposed on both applicants.

The direct effect is that the custodial sentences of 4 years and 3 years 9 months detention in young offender institutions stand. The decision confirms the application of the Overarching Guideline and relevant case law in youth sentencing, but does not establish new precedent beyond affirming existing principles. No broader implications beyond the immediate cases were discussed.