Summary of Court Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion records a hearing on an application by the Solicitor General for leave to refer two custodial sentences as unduly lenient. The application concerns two respondents identified in the trial as defendants. Defendant A was born in July 2007 and was 17 years 11 months at the date of the offences. Defendant B was born in June 2006 and was 18 years and 1 month at the material date.

The offences occurred on 1 August 2024. Defendant A entered a guilty plea on the first day of trial to: count 1 (causing grievous bodily harm with intent), count 3A (burglary entering with intent to steal a mobile phone) and counts 6 and 7 (criminal damage to doors and windows). After trial, the jury convicted Defendant A of additional burglary counts and attempted robbery (count 5). On 24 March 2025 the judge sentenced Defendant A to 4 years 6 months' imprisonment for the attempted robbery (count 5), with no separate penalty for the other matters.

Defendant B was convicted by jury of wounding (section 20) on count 1, burglary on count 3, attempted robbery on count 5, and criminal damage on count 7. The jury did not convict Defendant B of entering the house armed or participating in a plan to cause really serious bodily harm. On 24 March 2025 the judge sentenced Defendant B to 3 years' detention for attempted robbery (count 5), with concurrent sentences: 2 years in respect of a section 20 offence and 3 months for criminal damage.

The factual background as found or recorded by the trial judge is that Defendant A had been in an intermittent intimate relationship with the victim's stepbrother. In late July 2024 Defendant A became concerned that nude photographs of Defendant A were circulating and believed the victim was responsible; the police were reported to have found no evidence of the victim's involvement. On 31 July there was earlier hostile conduct at the victim's home. On 1 August Defendant A and Defendant B went to a shop where the victim worked, behaved aggressively, and later that night used a brick to smash a parked car windscreen and entered the victim's house. Defendant A picked up a knife inside the house. When the victim returned after midnight she encountered Defendants and others inside the house, left and ran; she was chased and assaulted on the street. The victim was stabbed three times, suffering serious chest injuries, required emergency chest surgery and was in hospital for ten days. There was extensive damage to the property (recorded at £7,000) and stolen designer handbags valued at £2,500. Forensic material linked Defendant A and Defendant B to the scene.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in applying the Street Robbery guideline in conjunction with the Robbery-dwelling guideline rather than applying the Robbery-dwelling guideline alone.
2. Whether the judge failed to make a sufficient upward adjustment to reflect multiple features of higher culpability and multiple features of serious harm.
3. Whether the judge applied an excessive reduction for youth, potentially due to misunderstanding the "Sentencing: children and young people" guideline.

Arguments of the Parties

Solicitor General's Submissions

• The Solicitor General submitted three principal errors in sentencing: (1) the Robbery-dwelling guideline should have been the appropriate primary guideline rather than the Street Robbery guideline (or at least reliance on the Street Robbery guideline was incorrect); (2) the judge failed to give adequate upward adjustment for multiple higher-culpability features and multiple features of Category 1 harm; and (3) the judge reduced the sentence too greatly for youth, possibly because of a misunderstanding of the relevant children's guideline.
• The Solicitor General contended that, when stepping back from the judge's work, the reductions applied produced an overall sentence that, while possibly permissible by some judges, remained unduly lenient in the circumstances.

Defendant A's Submissions

• Defendant A submitted that because the events involved a confrontation that began in the dwelling and finished on the street, the judge was entitled to take both the Robbery-dwelling and the Street Robbery guidelines into account.
• The defence for Defendant A submitted the judge had taken into account all relevant factors, including extensive engagement with the Youth Offending Team and a psychologist's assessment, and had applied an appropriate discount for youth (a 50% discount was applied).

Defendant B's Submissions

• Defendant B submitted the Crown's theory that Defendant B was aware that Defendant A was armed before the knife was produced was incorrect.
• Defendant B noted that the jury had not accepted that there was an intention to cause really serious bodily harm by Defendant B, and emphasised that the sentencing judge was also the trial judge and thus had direct knowledge of the evidence and the events.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court granted leave for the reference initially because the issues of categorisation (which robbery guideline applied) and the question whether the judge had misunderstood the children and young people guideline merited review. The Court then considered each of the Solicitor General's three main points in turn.

On the guideline choice issue, the Court analysed the factual sequence: the attempted robbery began in the dwelling (entry, ransacking and taking items) and the violent assault that produced serious injury occurred after the victim ran from the house onto the street. The Court concluded that the matter did not fall readily into the category of a pure street robbery nor into a pure dwelling robbery. The Court accepted the sentencing judge's approach of taking both guidelines into account and explained why adopting only the dwelling guideline would over-state the case (because the near-fatal attack occurred outside) and applying only the street guideline would under-state the seriousness (because of the waiting in the house, soiled and broken entry and ransacking). The Court therefore held the judge was permitted, and right, to have regard to both guidelines and to the aggravating features associated with the dwelling starting point where appropriate.

On the allegation that the judge failed to make sufficient upward adjustments for multiple higher-culpability features and for two features of Category 1 harm, the Court found that the judge had referred to all relevant aggravating features and had them well in mind. Although the judge did not set out, step by step in open court, the numerical workings that led to the final sentence before mitigation, the Court accepted that the judge's sentencing exercise had taken the relevant aggravating features into account, including (under the Robbery-dwelling guideline) the physical harm and the ransacking of property.

On the contention that the judge made too great a reduction for youth (possibly through a misunderstanding of the young persons guideline), the Court examined the transcript passages relied on. The sentencing judge stated that the guideline "recommends that the court may wish to discount the sentence by a half to two-thirds depending on the age of the offender" and said she would apply a 50% discount in relation to Defendant A. The Solicitor General argued that the wording might have been read as indicating a two-thirds discount or a reduction to two-thirds of the sentence. The Court observed that the judge clearly understood the appropriate approach because she stated a one-third discount for Defendant B and applied a 50% discount for Defendant A. The Court regarded any possible ambiguity as immaterial because the judge in fact applied a 50% reduction for Defendant A. The Court therefore concluded there was no material misapplication of the young persons guideline.

The Court then examined the global sentencing picture. It noted that a "split the difference" starting point between the Street Robbery and Robbery-dwelling guidelines would be in the region of a 10 years 6 months starting point. The Court acknowledged submissions that reductions applied before youth discount resulted in a lower effective starting point (for example, a reduction to about 9 years before discount), but the Court emphasised that there is no obligation for a judge to disclose every step of numerical calculation in open court. Taking account of the judge's findings about mitigation (engagement with Youth Offending Team, positive steps while in custody, psychological assessments indicating developmental and emotional difficulties), and the judge's view that rehabilitation and welfare considerations carry weight for young offenders, the Court concluded that although many judges might have imposed somewhat higher sentences, the sentence as imposed was not so far outside the range of reasonable sentencing choices as to be unduly lenient.

In short, the Court accepted the sentencing judge's reasoning that: (a) both dwelling and street factors were relevant and could be weighed together; (b) relevant aggravating factors and harm categories had been considered; and (c) the youth discounts applied were within the judge's lawful discretion and, in Defendant A's case, a 50% discount had in fact been applied so any textual ambiguity was immaterial.

Holding and Implications

THE REFERENCE IS REFUSED.

Implications and consequences:

• The Court refused to refer the sentences as unduly lenient. The sentences imposed on Defendant A and Defendant B by the sentencing judge therefore stand as made on 24 March 2025.
• The Court characterised the sentences as lenient in the sense that other judges might have imposed higher terms, but concluded they were not unduly lenient such that a referral was required.
• The opinion records no establishment of a new precedent; it is an application of the existing guidelines to the particular facts and a confirmation of the sentencing judge's exercise of discretion in relation to guideline choice and youth mitigation in this case.

---

Note on anonymisation: All personal names and specific geographic identifiers in the source opinion have been replaced by generic placeholders to preserve anonymity, consistent with the provided instructions. No facts beyond those stated in the opinion have been added.