Fraser, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns the sentencing of the Appellant, who was convicted on 7 December 2023 at the Crown Court at Harrow for possession of an article with a blade or point contrary to section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The trial judge, Judge Kay KC, sentenced the Appellant on 22 December 2023 to 21 months' imprisonment for this offence and activated in full a previously suspended sentence of 15 months' imprisonment imposed for a similar prior offence. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively, resulting in a total custodial sentence of 36 months.

The Appellant, born 8 July 2001, was 22 years old at sentencing. The background of the Appellant's offending history spans several years and includes multiple drug possession offences, possession of bladed articles, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, conspiracy to steal involving violent disorder, and affray. Previous sentences included referral orders, youth rehabilitation orders, community orders, and custodial sentences including a young offender institution sentence and suspended sentences.

The index offence occurred on 15 May 2023 when the Appellant travelled armed with a large hunting knife to a location in London and engaged in a fight with another male armed with a sword. The Appellant was acquitted of affray on a self-defence basis but convicted of the bladed article offence. The sentencing judge had the benefit of trial evidence, witness statements, a pre-sentence report, and a character reference, and considered the Appellant's age and maturity in sentencing.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in principle by failing to properly take into account the Appellant's relative youth and immaturity when imposing sentence.
2. Whether the custodial sentence of 21 months for the 2023 offence was manifestly excessive.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentencing judge failed to give sufficient regard to the Appellant's youth and immaturity, effectively refusing to take these factors into account.
• There was a significant and important sentencing practice relating to young people that was not adhered to.
• The length of the custodial term for the 2023 offence was excessive.

Respondent's Arguments

• It was appropriate and inescapable to impose immediate custody and to activate the suspended sentence in full due to the seriousness of the offending and the Appellant’s persistent criminal history.
• The sentencing judge properly considered age and maturity and found no evidence that the Appellant was unusually immature for his age.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the sentencing judge's treatment of the Appellant's age and maturity, noting that the judge explicitly addressed these factors. The judge recognized the scientific research that brain development continues into the early twenties but found no medical or psychiatric evidence that the Appellant was unusually immature. The judge concluded that the Appellant was an ordinary adult of his age and treated him accordingly.

The court examined the character reference and pre-sentence report, finding the former of limited assistance on maturity and the latter acknowledging some immaturity at age 19 but nothing unusual at age 21. The judge's sentence reflected totality principles and mitigating factors, including a reduction from the starting point. The court found no error in principle in the judge's approach and held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Regarding the surcharge, the court identified a miscalculation and substituted a corrected lower amount.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal against the custodial sentence, holding that the sentencing judge did not err in principle in relation to the Appellant's youth and immaturity and that the sentence imposed was appropriate and not excessive.

The court quashed the surcharge of £187 and substituted the correct amount of £156.

The direct effect is that the Appellant's total custodial sentence of 36 months stands, with no new precedent established beyond reaffirming the proper application of sentencing principles relating to young adults.