Judgment Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence brought by the Appellant, who was 14 years old at the time of the renewed application and 13 years old at the time of the offending. The Appellant pleaded guilty in the Magistrates' Court to four offences of possession of a bladed article, two sexual assaults and one attempted robbery, and was committed for sentence to the Crown Court.

At sentence the Crown Court imposed concurrent terms of 3 years 6 months' detention under section 250 of the Sentencing Code for each of the two sexual assaults and for the attempted robbery; no separate penalty was imposed for the possession of bladed articles. The Appellant applied for leave to appeal, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge failed properly to apply the child-specific guidelines.

An anonymity order was made under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 such that nothing identifying the Appellant may be published until he reaches 18. The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 restrictions on identification of victims were also noted as applicable to the sexual offences.

Factual summary (based on the account given at sentencing):

• Complainant 1 (aged 19) was approached in The City late at night on 10 July 2024 by the Appellant, who was hooded and carrying a knife. The Appellant pointed the knife at her face, demanded sex, used force to hold and pin her, exposed his penis and ordered her to perform oral sex, ejaculated onto her, and then ran away; a witness intervened and the police were called.
• Complainant 2 (aged late 30s/early 40s) was followed on or about 29 July 2024 and threatened with a knife as she unlocked her door; her scream caused the Appellant to flee; the event was caught on a domestic doorbell camera.
• Complainant 3 (a university student aged 19–20) was grabbed from behind on or about 31 July 2024; the Appellant pointed a knife at her, exposed his penis and tried to force her to touch it before being disturbed and running away.
• The Appellant was arrested on 1 August 2024 in The City in possession of a black-handled kitchen knife with a 5-inch blade; he admitted sometimes carrying a knife but denied the other incidents in interview.
• Victim impact statements described significant psychological and practical effects on each complainant. Pre-sentence and psychiatric/psychological reports recorded that the Appellant has learning difficulties, developmental immaturity, likely ADHD symptoms, impaired decision-making and impulsivity; the pre-sentence report assessed a medium risk of reoffending and indicated the Appellant could not, at the time of sentence, be properly managed within the community.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge properly applied the five-step sentencing approach set out in the Sentencing Children and Young People Guideline for Sexual Offences when sentencing a defendant who was 13 at the time of offending and 14 at sentence.
2. Whether, having regard to the Appellant's chronological age and developmental immaturity, the custodial sentence imposed (concurrent terms of 3 years 6 months' detention under section 250 of the Sentencing Code) was manifestly excessive.
3. Whether any non-custodial disposal or a shorter custodial youth-specific order (such as a detention and training order) would have been appropriate in place of the sentence imposed.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant challenged the judge's approach to sentencing, contending that although the judge referred to the five-stage test, he did not actually follow it and instead treated the Appellant as a "small adult."
• It was submitted that the seriousness of the offences required balancing against the Appellant's chronological age and developmental immaturity; if the correct balance had been struck a lesser sentence would have been appropriate, potentially a non-custodial sentence or, alternatively, a shorter detention and training order.
• The Appellant argued that the judge failed adequately to factor in the mitigating impact of youth and the Appellant's learning and developmental difficulties when determining the appropriate discount and overall disposal.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the prosecution's (or other respondent's) specific submissions in opposition to the appeal beyond the judge's recorded reasoning and conclusions.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Judge Wall reviewed the sentencing process and the Appellant's renewed application for leave to appeal. The court's analysis proceeded by reference to the materials and reasoning recorded at the sentencing hearing and to the issues raised on the renewed application. The key elements of the court's reasoning, as set out in the opinion, are as follows:

• Procedural and statutory context: The judge noted and the court recorded the applicable anonymity and victim-identification restrictions under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 and the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992.
• Sentencing framework: The sentencing judge identified and stated that he applied the Sentencing Children and Young People Overarching Guideline, the Sentencing Children and Young People Guideline for Sexual Offences and Robbery, and the Totality Guideline. He also referred to the relevant Adult Sentencing Guidelines and the Bench Book as they relate to young people in the Crown Court.
• Five-step approach: The judge said he would follow the five-step approach set out in the children's guideline for sexual offences: (1) determine seriousness by reference to the nature of the offence; (2) take into account aggravating and mitigating factors; (3) consider personal mitigation; (4) apply an appropriate reduction for guilty plea; and (5) review the sentence, including reference to Adult Guidelines if custody is inevitable. The appellate court examined whether that approach had, in practice, been followed.
• Assessment of seriousness and aggravating features: Although the judge did not state his seriousness finding at the outset, he later set out the adult-equivalent sentences he would have passed and explained how he reached those conclusions, thereby indicating he had determined seriousness. The court accepted that the offences were particularly serious and that numerous aggravating factors applied, including planning, concealment of identity (hooded clothing), use of a weapon on each occasion and the targeting of lone women walking at night.
• Consideration of mitigation and youth: The sentencing judge explicitly considered the Appellant's age (13 at the time of offending, 14 at sentence) and the mitigation in the various reports (learning difficulties, possible ADHD, impaired decision-making and impulsivity). He considered whether a non-custodial alternative or a detention and training order would be appropriate and concluded they were insufficient given the gravity of the offending and the pre-sentence assessment that the Appellant could not be managed in the community.
• Discount for youth and guilty plea: The judge applied a discount for youth in line with the Definitive Guideline: noting that the guideline suggests for ages 15–17 a reduction to between one-half and two-thirds of the appropriate adult sentence, he allowed a greater reduction because the Appellant was younger and had developmental difficulties. The resulting sentence (3 years 6 months) equated to approximately 40% of the appropriate adult total sentence the judge said he would have imposed (8 years 4 months before youth discount).
• Evaluation of whether custody was inevitable and proportionality: The judge considered whether custody was inevitable and concluded it was, given the nature and repetition of the offending and the effects on the victims. The appellate court agreed, emphasising the seriousness, repetition and the severe impact on each victim and accepting that a longer custodial term was required than a youth maximum 2-year detention and training order.
• Conclusion on manifest excess: The appellate court concluded that the sentencing judge had been aware of and had applied the correct considerations for a young offender, had appropriately weighed aggravating and mitigating features, and that the overall sentence could not properly be described as manifestly excessive. The court therefore refused leave to appeal.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused; the court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.

Direct consequences and immediate implications:

• The sentence of concurrent terms of 3 years 6 months' detention under section 250 of the Sentencing Code for each of the two sexual assaults and for the attempted robbery remains in place. No separate penalty was imposed for the possession of bladed articles.
• The anonymity order under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 remains in effect until the Appellant reaches the age of 18. The prohibitions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 in relation to identification of victims of sexual offences were also recorded as applying.
• The court indicated that custody was inevitable on the facts before it and that the length of the sentence could not be described as manifestly excessive in all the circumstances (seriousness, repetition, aggravating features, victim impact, and the pre-sentence assessment that the Appellant could not be managed in the community).

No broader legal precedent or novel point of law was identified in the opinion; the decision concerned application of existing sentencing guidelines and concluded that the sentencing judge had properly exercised his discretion in a way that did not justify appellate interference.

All personal names, locations and identifying details in this summary have been anonymised and rendered consistent with the source opinion's restrictions on publication.