ZA v R
[2023] EWCA Crim 596
Ismaila Kamarra-Jarra v Rex
20 February 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 198
Court of Appeal
Three teenagers were convicted of murder. One, just over 18, received a longer sentence than the younger two. The court decided the older teenager's difficult past wasn't considered enough, so they reduced his jail time. The case shows that even for adults just over 18, judges must consider their maturity and background.
Key Facts
- •Ismaila Kamarra-Jarra, Je-Daine Carty, and Cohan Daley were convicted of the murder of Frantisek Olah.
- •Kamarra-Jarra was 18 years and 4 months old at the time of the murder, while Carty and Daley were 17.
- •The murder was committed during a robbery and involved the use of knives.
- •Kamarra-Jarra had an extremely difficult childhood marked by chronic physical and emotional abuse and a lack of domestic stability.
- •The judge sentenced Kamarra-Jarra to a minimum term of 32 years, while Carty and Daley received 29 years each.
- •Kamarra-Jarra appealed his sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive due to insufficient allowance for his youth and the disparity with his co-defendants' sentences.
Legal Principles
Sentencing co-defendants involved in a joint murder, where one is just over 18 and others are just under, requires consideration of paragraph 5A of Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020 (introduced by section 127 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022).
Schedule 21, Sentencing Act 2020; Section 127, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022
The starting point for minimum terms for murder varies based on the offender's age and the seriousness of the offence, as outlined in paragraph 5A of Schedule 21.
Paragraph 5A, Schedule 21, Sentencing Act 2020
When sentencing young adults, courts should consider their maturity level and not treat the 18th birthday as a cliff edge for sentencing purposes. Factors such as immaturity, impulsivity, and the impact of adverse childhood experiences should be considered.
R v Peters, Palmer and Campbell [2005] EWCA Crim 605; R v Clarke and Others [2018] EWCA Crim 185; R v ZA [2023] EWCA Crim 596; Sentencing Council Guideline for Sentencing Children and Young People
Significant disparities in sentences for co-defendants in the same murder should be avoided unless justified by differences in culpability, not solely age.
R v Taylor (Joel) [2007] EWCA Crim 803; Attorney General's References Nos 143 and 144 (R v Brown and Carty) [2007] EWCA Crim 1245
The sentencing judge must consider the offender's level of maturity at the time of the offence and assess the extent to which young age and lack of maturity reduced the offender's culpability.
R v Popoola [2021] EWCA Crim 842
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed.
The Court of Appeal found that the judge had given insufficient weight to the appellant's immaturity and extremely difficult childhood experiences, resulting in an excessive minimum term. The disparity between the appellant's sentence and those of his co-defendants was also considered.
The minimum custodial term was reduced from 32 years to 28 years (27 years and 91 days after deducting time spent on remand).
The court considered that the appellant's lack of maturity and childhood trauma should have outweighed the aggravating factors. A shorter sentence was deemed proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and his culpability.