Court of Appeal — Summary of Opinion by Judge Stacey

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was convicted on 21 July 2023 of murder and of wounding with intent arising from offences that occurred on 21 August 2022. He had earlier pleaded guilty to possession of a bladed article and to possession of a small quantity of a class A drug. On 4 August 2023, shortly before his 23rd birthday, the Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 28 years for the murder (with a concurrent 12-year sentence for the wounding with intent and a concurrent 2-year sentence for the bladed-article offence; no separate penalty was imposed for the drug offence).

The Appellant appealed against sentence with leave granted by the full court on a single ground: that the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to the Appellant's age and level of maturity, rendering the sentence manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal heard the appeal and announced dismissal of the appeal, with reasons provided in the present opinion.

Factual summary relevant to sentencing (as set out in the opinion): on the evening in question the Appellant spent time drinking and taking cocaine in a public courtyard area of a city and carried a lock knife throughout the evening. After being denied entry to one venue and removed from another, the Appellant re-entered the area and, following a short sequence of confrontation, produced the knife and inflicted a fatal stab wound to the neck of one person (Victim 1) severing the carotid artery, and inflicted two serious slash wounds on a second person (Victim 2), including a large chest wound and a severe arm wound causing long-term disability. The Appellant was intoxicated at arrest; drugs and alcohol were detected after the incident and cocaine wraps were found on his person. He had a previous record including an earlier conviction for possession of a bladed article and some drug offences.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to take sufficient account of the Appellant's youth and level of maturity such that the minimum term imposed for the mandatory life sentence was manifestly excessive.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contended that the sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to his chronological youth and level of maturity (including developmental immaturity and relevant psychological conditions and adverse childhood experiences), such that the sentence (a 28-year minimum term) was manifestly excessive.
• The Appellant sought an adjournment at sentence to obtain a full psychological maturity assessment; a defence expert had been instructed and a fuller report was sought but the sentencing judge refused the requested six-week adjournment and did not order a probation pre-sentence report prior to sentence.

Respondent's / Crown Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the prosecution or Crown's submissions on the appeal.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Kamarra-Jarra [2024] EWCA Crim 198	Authority for the proposition that guidance on sentencing children and young people (including the Youth Bench Book) remains relevant to young adults up to the age of 25.	The court relied on the authority to confirm that the sentencing court should consider developmental factors for young adults and that the Youth Bench Book guidance is relevant when assessing maturity up to age 25.
R v Popoola [2021] EWCA Crim 842	Sets out that the sentencing court must consider the offender's level of maturity at the time of the offence and assess how age and lack of maturity reduce culpability.	The court cited the case to underline the obligation on the sentencing judge to assess maturity and to reduce culpability if appropriate; it was part of the legal framework applied when reviewing whether sufficient allowance had been made for maturity.
R v ZA [2023] EWCA Crim 596	Establishes that adverse childhood experiences, educational difficulties and mental health problems can negatively affect the development of adult thought processes and may result in lower maturity.	The court used the authority to support the proposition that factors such as adverse childhood experiences and mental health issues are relevant to maturity and culpability assessment.
R v BRM [2022] EWCA Crim 385	Explains that expert psychological evidence must be tethered to the facts of the offence to be of use to the court.	The court applied this principle when evaluating the defence psychologist's limited reports, concluding that the expert could not give a maturity opinion tethered to the offence facts because a fuller assessment had not been possible in the time available.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded by first setting out the statutory starting point for the minimum term under Schedule 21 paragraph 4 of the Sentencing Act 2020: because a knife was carried and used in the murder, the starting point for the minimum term for the murder alone was 25 years. The Court also noted that section 322 of the Act requires accounting for the seriousness of associated offences when setting the minimum term.

The sentencing judge identified numerous aggravating factors: pre-existing propensity to carry knives (including a previous conviction for carrying a knife), escalation of aggressive behaviour over the course of the evening, intoxication from alcohol and drugs, and the grave and life-threatening nature of the injuries inflicted. The judge determined that the wounding of Victim 2 was a category 1A offence (highly dangerous weapon with particularly grave injury) meriting a 12-year starting point for that offence and that, applying the totality principle and section 322, the wounding should uplift the murder minimum term by five years.

In mitigation the judge accepted limited points: absence of certain evidence of intention to kill (so reduction for lack of intention was small), lack of premeditation (but limited mitigation because the Appellant had carried a knife all evening and engaged in escalating confrontations), and a limited allowance for youth and lack of maturity. The judge expressly recorded that he took into account the Appellant's "relative youth" and evidence about mental functioning and lack of maturity, and allowed limited weight in mitigation.

Regarding the availability and role of expert evidence, the Court accepted that expert psychological evidence and pre-sentence reports can assist where maturity or neurodiversity is relevant, but reiterated that such expert opinion must be tethered to the facts of the offence to be of assistance. In this case the defence psychologist had been unable, within the time available before sentence, to conduct a maturity assessment in custody and therefore produced only general observations rather than an opinion tying immaturity to the offending. The sentencing judge therefore could not give full weight to expert opinion because it was not anchored to the facts of the offending.

After the Court of Appeal ordered a pre-appeal probation report (including an OASys assessment), that report recorded an OASys score indicating continued low maturity relative to age (score of 15 in 2025, down only slightly from 16 in 2019). The report identified substance abuse, peer influence and low maturity as likely influences, with some signs of improving maturity in custody in the most recent period.

The Court analysed whether the downward adjustment of two years from the 25-year starting point (applied by the sentencing judge to recognise youth and immaturity) was insufficient given the material in the pre-appeal report. The Court concluded that, in light of the many aggravating features and the extreme risk of death posed by the stabbing, the sentencing judge had already given significant credit for youth and immaturity by reducing the starting point by two years. The Court emphasised that the lack of intention to kill provided very little mitigation given the lethal nature of the acts, and that lack of premeditation was of limited weight because the Appellant had carried the knife and was involved in an escalating pattern of confrontational behaviour. The Court therefore found no manifestly excessive sentence and dismissed the appeal.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Implications and direct effects:

• The Appellant's sentence — life imprisonment with a minimum term of 28 years — stands.
• The Court affirmed that sentencing courts must consider youth and maturity (including developmental immaturity and relevant psychological conditions) when sentencing young adults up to 25, and that relevant authorities and guidance (including the Youth Bench Book and the cited cases) apply.
• The opinion underlines two practical points for sentencers and defence teams: (a) expert psychological evidence and pre-sentence reports can materially assist in assessing maturity, but such expert opinions must be tethered to the facts of the offence to be of use; and (b) where expert assessment is likely to be necessary, an adjournment to obtain it will often be preferable, but refusal of an adjournment will not be an error if the sentencing judge has nonetheless properly assessed and given weight to maturity in the circumstances of the case.
• The decision does not purport to establish new legal principles beyond the application of established authorities; it applies existing guidance and case law to the facts and holds that the sentencing judge had sufficiently accounted for age and immaturity in this case.

---

Note on anonymisation: All personal names and precise location identifiers from the source opinion have been replaced with consistent generic placeholders in this summary.