ZA v R
[2023] EWCA Crim 596
R v Jordell Solomon
8 November 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1375
Court of Appeal
A young man was convicted of many violent crimes. The judge gave him a long sentence. The appeal court agreed the sentence was fair but corrected some mistakes the judge made in applying the law to the sentence.
Key Facts
- •Jordell Solomon, aged 17 at the time of the first set of offenses and 20-21 at the time of the second, was convicted on two separate indictments.
- •First indictment (June 17, 2019): Three counts of robbery, attempted theft, two counts of handling stolen goods, two counts of having an offensive weapon, attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent, and damaging property.
- •Second indictment (March 2, 2022): Escape, attempted robbery, and robbery.
- •Sentenced on November 3, 2022, to consecutive extended determinate sentences totaling eight years' custody and four years' extended license for counts 13 (first indictment) and 2 (second indictment).
- •Concurrent four-month sentences for weapon offences; no separate penalty for other offences.
- •Previous convictions (25 offences including violence and property crimes).
- •Mental health assessments indicating autism, ADHD, and traits of dissocial personality disorder but deemed unsuitable for hospital order.
- •Appeal against sentence focused on excessive sentence, inadequate consideration of mitigation and mental health, and improper application of totality principle.
Legal Principles
Sentencing offenders with mental disorders, developmental disorders or neurological impairments Guideline
Totality principle in sentencing
Sentencing of dangerous offenders and extended sentences
Sentencing Act 2020
Revocation of Youth Rehabilitation Orders
Sentencing Act 2020, Schedule 7, paragraph 23(1)
Mandatory victim surcharge
R v Mohammed [2023] 1 WLR 1858 (sentencing consideration for age and immaturity)
R v Mohammed [2023] 1 WLR 1858
Outcomes
Appeal against sentence largely dismissed.
The court found the sentence, while containing jurisdictional errors, was not manifestly excessive given the severity and number of offenses and the applicant's history.
Youth Rehabilitation Order quashed due to expiry.
The order expired before the relevant convictions, rendering its revocation invalid.
Sentences on counts 13 (first indictment) and 2 (second indictment) quashed and substituted with sentences appropriate to the applicant's age at the time of the offences under sections 254 and 266 of the Sentencing Act 2020 respectively.
The original sentences were passed under incorrect statutory provisions.
Imprisonment sentences on counts 3 and 15 (first indictment) quashed and substituted with detention and training orders.
The applicant was under 18 at the time of the convictions, making imprisonment invalid.
Victim surcharge not imposed due to the court’s inability to do so under section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeals Act 1968.
Although mandatory, the court couldn't impose it because it wouldn't reduce the overall sentence.