Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Leighton Findley v R

[2024] EWCA Crim 1204
A young man was given community service for crimes he committed as a minor. The court decided this was illegal, so they replaced it with a youth rehabilitation order instead. They also warned him that breaking this order will land him in jail.

Key Facts

  • Leighton Findley, born September 17, 2005, was sentenced on January 26, 2024, at age 18.
  • He pleaded guilty to robbery (March 2022, age 16), theft (April 2023, age 17), and two burglaries (May 2023, age 17).
  • Sentenced to concurrent 3-year community orders with rehabilitation, unpaid work, and curfew.
  • Appeal based on unlawful community order due to being under 18 at conviction.
  • R v Sweeney (Thomas) [2024] EWCA Crim 382 cited as precedent.
  • Breached community order multiple times, leading to breach proceedings.
  • Probation assessed high risk of harm to sister, medium risk to mother.

Legal Principles

A community order is only available for offenders aged 18 or over at the time of conviction and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment.

Section 202(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020

Court of Appeal cannot substitute a sentence more severe overall than that passed in the Crown Court.

Section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968

Outcomes

Granted leave to appeal and quashed community orders.

Community orders were unlawful as the applicant was under 18 at the time of conviction.

Quashed surcharge order.

Surcharge was based on an unlawful community order and offences committed before age 18.

Substituted community orders with concurrent 3-year youth rehabilitation orders with supervision requirement.

Youth rehabilitation order deemed appropriate considering age, mitigating factors (father's influence, learning difficulties, psychological limitations), and aim of rehabilitation. Acknowledges that a custodial sentence was initially merited but balances with rehabilitation goals. Also considers that the lengthier supervision offered by a 3 year order would be beneficial, despite some initial breaches.

Substituted the surcharge order with an order of £22.

The original surcharge was calculated based on an adult sentence; therefore, a recalculated amount appropriate to a youth was applied.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.