Summary of Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal against sentence brought with leave of the single judge. On 25 April 2025, at the Crown Court, the Appellant (then 18) was sentenced by Judge Boydell for violent disorder (count 1) and possessing an offensive weapon in a public place (count 2). On count 1 a suspended sentence order of 18 months' custody was imposed, suspended for 2 years, with a rehabilitation activity requirement of 30 days and an unpaid work requirement of 150 hours. On count 2 a concurrent suspended sentence of 2 months' custody suspended for 2 years was imposed.

The offences occurred on 10 August 2022 in The City. The Appellant was the youngest of three defendants and was 16 years and 3 months old at the time. During a violent incident a group assaulted two persons (Victim 1 and Victim 2). The Appellant was seen on CCTV wielding an iron pole and passing it to a co-defendant. One victim suffered a life‑threatening stab wound during the disorder (there is no suggestion the Appellant inflicted that wound) and sustained lasting physical and psychological harm.

The Appellant was interviewed in September 2022 and admitted presence but denied striking anyone with the pole. The first court appearance for the defendants was 27 July 2023. At the plea and trial preparation hearing on 24 August 2023 the Appellant pleaded not guilty and was committed to trial in the Crown Court. A co-defendant (Co-defendant 1) pleaded guilty and was remitted to the Youth Court and received a Referral Order. The Appellant changed his plea to guilty on the day of trial (2 December 2024) to both counts; sentencing was deferred until the conclusion of a co-defendant's proceedings and occurred on 25 April 2025.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge was wrong in principle to impose a custodial sentence (albeit suspended) rather than substituting a community order of 2 years with equivalent requirements, having regard to the Appellant's age (16) at the time of the offences.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge failed to give sufficient weight to the fact the Appellant was 16 at the time of the offences and thus the starting point ought to reflect the sentence appropriate at that time, relying on R v Ahmed [2023] EWCA Crim 281 and R v Ghafoor [2002] EWCA Crim 1857.
• Had the Appellant been sentenced at age 16 he would likely have been remitted to the Youth Court and received a non‑custodial disposal (Referral Order); therefore there is unfair disparity with Co‑defendant 1 who did receive a Referral Order.
• The Appellant had shown mitigation: maturation since the offence, no further trouble, completion of a barbering/hairdressing course, a period of apprenticeship employment, and some completion of unpaid work and rehabilitation activity days.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the sentencing judge's approach to the relevant guidelines and facts. The judge had categorised the violent disorder as a category 2B offence under the Sentencing Council guideline, giving a starting point for an adult of two years' custody (range one to three years). The judge reduced the adult equivalent sentence principally because the Appellant was 16 at the time, arriving at 20 months (two‑thirds of an adult sentence of 30 months).

The judge then applied the Sentencing Council guideline on community and custodial sentences and performed the requisite balancing exercise on suspension, concluding the 20‑month sentence could be suspended. The pre‑sentence report recommended either a two‑year community order with specified requirements or, if custody was inevitable, suspension with the same requirements; the judge followed the latter course.

The court emphasised that the Appellant's tactical decision to maintain a not guilty plea until trial (thereby remaining in the Crown Court for sentence) was the sole reason he was sentenced in the Crown Court rather than the Youth Court. Applying Ghafoor, the court recognised that the starting point might have been non‑custodial had sentencing occurred at the time of the offence, but found that the Appellant's significant role in a very serious offence meant the custody threshold was passed and a custodial sentence (albeit suspended) was justified. The court also addressed alleged disparity with Co‑defendant 1 and concluded a reasonable observer would understand the difference arose from plea and procedural history, not a failure of administration of justice.

The court found no error of principle and no manifest excess in the sentence. It further directed that an error in the court record (labeling the sentence as a suspended sentence of imprisonment) be corrected to reflect a suspended sentence of detention in a young offender institution.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED

Direct effect: the sentence imposed by the Crown Court (suspended custodial sentence with the specified rehabilitation and unpaid work requirements) stands. The court directed amendment of the record to state the sentence as a suspended sentence of detention in a young offender institution. No new legal principle was established; the decision applies existing authorities and guidelines to the facts of this case.