R v Maximus Quartey
[2024] EWCA Crim 745
R v Cortez Watson-Berry
12 September 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1098
Court of Appeal
A young man got a too-short prison sentence for several serious crimes, including robberies. The appeal court increased his sentence because the original judge was too lenient, even though they considered things like his age and difficult past. The court decided he was dangerous, but a longer sentence alone was enough to protect the public.
Key Facts
- •Cortez Watson-Berry (offender), aged 19, received a 45-month sentence for various offenses committed between June 2023 and November 2023.
- •Offenses included possession of a bladed article (Basildon offense), robbery (October robbery), and robbery involving imitation firearms and machetes (November offenses).
- •The November robbery involved threats and the theft of expensive bicycles.
- •The offender had previous good character before these offenses.
- •The Attorney General's office referred the sentence under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, arguing it was unduly lenient.
- •The trial judge considered the offender's youth, mitigating circumstances (trauma, character references, recent fatherhood), and the Sentencing Council's guidelines.
- •The judge imposed concurrent sentences, totaling 45 months, deeming it significantly more lenient than for an adult.
Legal Principles
Sentencing of children and young persons is complex, with the age of 18 not a 'cliff edge' for maturity considerations.
R v ZA [2023] EWCA Crim 596
Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 allows for the Attorney General to refer sentences deemed unduly lenient.
Criminal Justice Act 1988
Sentencing guidelines should be applied, considering aggravating and mitigating factors.
Sentencing Council's guidelines
Totality principle in sentencing: The overall sentence should reflect the seriousness of all offenses.
Case Law (implied)
Dangerousness and extended sentences should be considered if appropriate for public protection.
Case Law (implied)
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal granted leave to refer the sentence.
The original sentence was unduly lenient, failing to adequately reflect the seriousness and totality of the offenses, even after accounting for mitigating factors.
The 45-month sentence was quashed and replaced with a 6-year sentence.
The Court considered the need for upward adjustments to reflect aggravating factors (bail conditions, multiple offenses) and a minimum sentence appropriate for a mature adult before applying significant mitigation for youth.
The offender was deemed dangerous for sentencing purposes, but an extended sentence was not deemed necessary.
The increased custodial sentence, coupled with the offender's lack of prior criminal involvement and prospects for maturation, was considered sufficient for public protection.