Armstrong, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was convicted on 20 October 2023 in the Crown Court at The City of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent (count 1) and murder (count 3), shortly before his 18th birthday. Sentence was adjourned and later imposed on 17 November 2023: 30 months' detention for count 1 and detention at His Majesty's pleasure with a minimum term of 23 years and 188 days for count 3.

The facts of count 1 involved the Appellant and an associate driving around The City, where they assaulted a man, identified as the Victim 1, with a metal pole and fists causing multiple fractures and bruising. The offence was reported later when Victim 1 became aware of the related murder offence.

Count 3 concerned the murder of a relative of the Appellant's mother, Victim 2, following a heated family dispute on social media. The Appellant and others forced entry into Victim 2's home and inflicted over 40 blows causing severe injuries, including multiple fractures and internal bleeding, which led to Victim 2's death shortly after. The Appellant's blood was found at the scene. The Appellant surrendered to police weeks later but declined to answer questions in interviews.

The sentencing judge applied relevant sentencing guidelines and statutory provisions, adjusting the starting points for the Appellant's age and maturity. The judge imposed concurrent sentences for the offences and took into account aggravating and mitigating factors, including the Appellant's age, background, and level of maturity.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the minimum term for murder by insufficiently accounting for the Appellant's immaturity and personal mitigation.
2. Whether the minimum term imposed was manifestly excessive or legally erroneous.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentencing judge failed to adequately consider the Appellant's immaturity as a 17-year-old, who was close to full maturity but still developing.
• The Appellant had a difficult and disrupted childhood, including a father imprisoned for much of his upbringing, possible undiagnosed needs, and low literacy levels.
• The Appellant's involvement was influenced by family dynamics and his mother's dispute, suggesting diminished culpability due to immaturity and external influences.
• The starting point for the minimum term should not have been increased given the balance of aggravating and mitigating factors, including immaturity.
• Reference was made to a pre-trial intermediary report and pre-sentence report highlighting immaturity and communication difficulties.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully considered the statutory sentencing framework, including the Sentencing Act 2020 and subsequent amendments, which prescribe reduced starting points for offenders under 18 but require an individualised assessment of maturity and culpability.

The sentencing judge was found to have appropriately applied these principles, taking into account the Appellant's chronological age, maturity, and the nature and circumstances of the offences. The judge acknowledged the aggravating factors such as the vulnerability of the murder victim, forced entry, sustained violence, and the Appellant's role in recruiting a co-defendant.

The court rejected the Appellant's argument that immaturity should be considered independently of culpability, affirming that immaturity affects the degree of responsibility and thus the sentence. The sentencing judge's assessment was supported by the absence of evidence of any significant mental disorder or developmental impairment beyond chronological age.

The single judge’s refusal of leave to appeal was endorsed, noting the sentencing judge’s careful balancing of mitigation and aggravation. The minimum term was not deemed manifestly excessive or legally flawed.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence.

This decision upholds the original sentencing determinations, confirming that the sentencing judge acted within legal bounds and exercised proper discretion in considering age, maturity, and culpability. No new precedent was established, and the direct effect is the maintenance of the imposed minimum term and detention sentence.