Ratcliffe v R.

Factual and Procedural Background

On 11 February 2023, the Plaintiff, aged 15 years and 8 months, met the Appellant, aged 15 years and 7 months, and the Defendant, aged 16 years and 3 months, in The City. The three, who knew each other from school, proceeded to a location in Linear Park. The Appellant brought a hunting knife purchased earlier that year. Together with the Plaintiff, the Appellant stabbed the Defendant 28 times, causing her death. Both the Plaintiff and the Appellant pleaded not guilty at trial, each denying responsibility for the stabbing and accusing the other. On 20 December 2023, a jury found both guilty of murder. Subsequently, the Plaintiff admitted guilt, while the Appellant maintained innocence during probation interviews.

The trial judge, Judge Yip, described the murder as brutal and shocking, emphasising the youth of the parties involved, the viciousness of the assault, and the disturbing communications exchanged between the Plaintiff and Appellant before and after the attack. The victim was transgender and supported by a loving family. On 2 February 2024, both the Plaintiff and Appellant were sentenced to detention at His Majesty's pleasure, with minimum terms of 22 and 20 years respectively, less time spent in custody on remand. The Appellant has applied for leave to appeal against his minimum term, and this application has been referred to the Full Court by the Registrar.

Reporting restrictions were imposed by Judge Yip on 27 November 2023, prohibiting publication of identities of children involved, except for the Plaintiff and Appellant whose identities were lifted at sentencing.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the minimum term of 20 years imposed on the Appellant was manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the judge erred in determining a 20-year starting point for the Appellant as well as the Plaintiff.
3. Whether the judge failed to adequately reflect the Appellant's age and maturity in setting the starting point.
4. Whether the judge disproportionately increased the starting point for the Appellant based on aggravating factors.
5. Whether the sentence sufficiently reflected the Appellant's personal mitigation, including his diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and associated impairments.
6. Whether the judge failed to distinguish adequately between the roles and culpability of the Plaintiff and the Appellant.
7. Whether the judge failed to provide sufficient reasoning in sentencing remarks to explain the adjustments made for aggravating and mitigating features.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The 20-year minimum term was manifestly excessive.
• The judge erred in assigning the same 20-year starting point for both the Appellant and Plaintiff despite differing motivations and levels of culpability.
• The judge failed to properly account for the Appellant's age and maturity in setting the starting point.
• The aggravating factors were applied disproportionately against the Appellant, including double counting.
• The sentence insufficiently reflected the Appellant’s ASD diagnosis and significant functional impairments.
• Insufficient distinction was made between the roles and culpability of the Plaintiff and Appellant.
• The sentencing remarks lacked clarity on how aggravating and mitigating factors influenced the final sentence.

Respondent's Arguments

• The seriousness of the offence was "particularly high" or "exceptionally high" under Schedule 21 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
• The Appellant actively participated in the brutal murder, knowing the sadistic motives and was motivated in part by hostility towards the victim's transgender identity.
• The 20-year starting point was appropriate for the Appellant given his involvement and the nature of the offence.
• The judge properly considered the Appellant’s age and maturity within the framework of aggravating and mitigating factors.
• Aggravating factors were correctly identified and applied to the Appellant, including planning, daylight commission, and public location.
• The judge was entitled to conclude that the Appellant’s ASD and immaturity did not significantly reduce culpability.
• The sentencing remarks sufficiently explained the judge’s reasoning and approach to the sentence.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by recognising the statutory framework under the Sentencing Act 2020 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, emphasising the principal aim of the youth justice system to prevent offending by young persons. The judge was required to select an appropriate starting point for the minimum term from Schedule 21, which provides fixed starting points based on age and seriousness, with 20 years applicable to defendants aged 15 or 16 involved in particularly serious murders involving knives.

The court rejected the Appellant’s argument that the starting point should differ from the Plaintiff’s despite differing culpability. The statutory starting point is fixed by age and offence seriousness, with adjustments for maturity and culpability made through aggravating and mitigating factors rather than altering the starting point itself.

The court upheld the judge’s finding that the murder involved sadistic conduct, based on the evidence and messages exchanged prior to the offence, establishing the Appellant’s awareness and participation in causing suffering. It also affirmed the finding that the murder was aggravated by hostility related to the victim’s transgender identity, a conclusion supported by communications from the Appellant and consistent with statutory provisions requiring such hostility to be treated as an aggravating factor.

The court reviewed the identified aggravating factors, including planning and premeditation, prior attempts to kill the victim, vulnerability of the victim, betrayal of trust, brutality, and the public nature of the offence. It found the judge was entitled to consider these factors as aggravating in the Appellant’s case.

Regarding mitigation, the judge acknowledged the Appellant’s previous good character, positive progress in detention, and diagnosis of mild ASD with associated impairments. The court accepted the judge’s assessment that while the Appellant was less mature than many peers and had cognitive and social deficits, his culpability was not significantly reduced because he understood the wrongfulness of his actions and was capable of refusal. The judge also considered the increased hardship the Appellant would face in custody due to his conditions.

The court addressed the contention that the sentencing remarks lacked detailed quantification of adjustments for aggravating and mitigating factors. It held that the judge fulfilled her duty by identifying relevant factors and providing an overall conclusion on their balance, without the need for a mathematical breakdown, which could misrepresent sentencing as a purely formulaic exercise.

Ultimately, the court found the judge’s sentencing approach and reasoning to be sound, with no error in principle or manifest excessiveness in the minimum term imposed on the Appellant.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED LEAVE TO APPEAL against the minimum term of 20 years imposed on the Appellant.

This decision confirms the application of Schedule 21 starting points as fixed by statutory age and offence seriousness, with adjustments for maturity and culpability appropriately made through aggravating and mitigating factors rather than altering the starting point. The ruling underscores the court’s deference to sentencing judges’ factual findings on motive and hostility, especially in complex cases involving young offenders and serious violent crimes. No new precedent was set; the decision affirms established principles of sentencing youth offenders and the treatment of offences aggravated by hostility related to transgender identity.