Factual and Procedural Background
The Crown Court made a section 45 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 direction prohibiting publication of identifying information about persons under 18 involved in the proceedings. This order ceased to apply to the applicant upon turning 18 but remained in force for a co-defendant until November 2025.
The Registrar referred the applicant's application for leave to appeal against a 22-month detention and training order imposed on 24 November 2024 in the Crown Court at Manchester. The applicant pleaded guilty to two offences: possession of an offensive weapon in a public place contrary to section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, resulting in a four-month detention and training order; and violent disorder contrary to section 2(1) of the Public Order Act 1986, resulting in an 18-month detention and training order.
On 28 March 2024, the applicant and two co-defendants were involved in drug trafficking in a certain area and were armed with highly dangerous "zombie" or "Rambo-type" knives. They confronted rival drug dealers who fled; one co-defendant was fatally stabbed during the pursuit. The applicant was in custody from 4 April 2024 until sentencing and pleaded guilty to the weapon offence on the first day of trial and to violent disorder after manslaughter charges were dismissed.
The applicant was 17 years old at the time of offending, with prior convictions for possession of cannabis and handling stolen goods. The pre-sentence report described him as remorseful but lacking maturity, diagnosed with ADHD without medication, effectively homeless, and subject to exploitation through forced gang-related criminality and drug dealing. The probation officer recommended a youth rehabilitation order (YRO) with intensive supervision as an alternative to custody.
The judge sentenced the applicant to a detention and training order totaling 22 months, considering the seriousness of the offences, the dangerous nature of the weapons, and the need for deterrence. The sentences for the two offences were ordered to run consecutively, reduced for the applicant's guilty pleas and totality. The applicant was released on licence in March 2025.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the judge failed adequately to take account of the applicant's youth and maturity in sentencing.
- Whether the judge failed to properly consider the pre-sentence report and the proposed alternative of a youth rehabilitation order with intensive supervision.
- Whether the starting points for sentencing the offences were too high.
- Whether insufficient credit was given for mitigating factors.
- Whether the judge failed to properly apply the totality principle in sentencing.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v ZA [2023] EWCA Crim 596; [2023] 2 Cr.App.R (S) 45 |
Guidance on sentencing children and young people, emphasizing an individualistic and child-focused approach. |
The court referenced key paragraphs to underline the necessity of considering youth and maturity in sentencing, although these were not repeated in full. |
| R v Smickele [2012] EWCA Crim 1470; [2013] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 64 |
Deterrence can be a factor in sentencing young offenders but must be balanced with welfare and maturity considerations. |
The court agreed that deterrence plays a role but must be appropriately balanced in sentencing children, supporting the judge’s approach. |
| R v March [2002] EWCA Crim 551; [2002] 2 Cr.App.R (S) 98 |
Application of reductions for guilty pleas and total sentence limits in detention and training orders. |
Used to confirm that reductions for guilty pleas must apply within a 24-month total sentence limit for children. |
| R v Dalby [2005] EWCA Crim 1292; [2006] 1 Cr.App.R (S) 38 |
Similar to R v March regarding guilty plea reductions and total sentence calculations. |
Supported the court’s conclusion on appropriate sentence calculation and reduction limits. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analysed the sentencing guidelines applicable to children and young people, particularly the necessity of an individualised approach focusing on the offender rather than solely on the offence. It acknowledged the importance of deterrence but emphasized that it must be balanced with welfare considerations and the offender’s maturity.
The court noted that the judge did not explicitly adopt a starting point from the adult offence-specific guidelines but referred to notional sentences well below those starting points. The judge’s decision to impose consecutive sentences was scrutinized but ultimately upheld as consistent with the totality principle, especially since the total sentence was significantly lower than that of a co-defendant only a few years older.
The court addressed concerns about the sentence exceeding 24 months before reductions for guilty pleas, concluding that any slight excess was not an arguable ground for appeal given the generous reductions applied. The judge’s consideration of the pre-sentence report, mitigating factors, and alternatives to custody was found to be adequate.
Overall, the court found no error in principle or manifest excess in the sentence imposed, given the seriousness of the offences, the dangerous weapons involved, and the context of the violent incident leading to a fatality.
Holding and Implications
The court DISMISSED the applicant's application for leave to appeal against the detention and training order.
The decision upheld the lower court’s sentencing approach, affirming that a custodial sentence was appropriate given the nature of the offences and the offender’s conduct. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling confirms the applicability of existing sentencing guidelines and principles, including the consideration of youth, maturity, and the totality principle in sentencing children and young people involved in serious violent offences.