BPO v R
[2024] EWCA Crim 517
R v Nazir Ahmed & Ors
17 March 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 281
Court of Appeal
If you were a child when you committed a crime and are now an adult facing sentencing, the judge must consider what the punishment would have been when you were a child. The punishment now can be higher, but only if there's a really good reason, and it can't ignore the fact that you were a child when you did the crime.
Key Facts
- •Five appeals concerning the sentencing of adults for offences committed as children were heard together.
- •All cases involved sexual offences.
- •Sentencing guidelines for children and young people were in question.
- •The cases spanned various years, raising questions about historical sentencing practices.
Legal Principles
Courts must consider the welfare of a child or young person when sentencing.
Children and Young Persons Act 1933, section 44(1)
The youth justice system's primary aim is to prevent offending by children and young persons.
Crime and Disorder Act 1998, section 37
Courts must follow relevant sentencing guidelines unless it's contrary to the interests of justice.
Sentencing Code, section 59(1)
When sentencing an adult for a childhood offence, the starting point is the likely sentence at the time of the offence.
R v. Ghafoor [2002] EWCA Crim 1857
Sentencing must be in accordance with the regime at the date of sentencing, but limited by the maximum sentence available at the time of the offending.
R v. Forbes and others [2016] EWCA Crim 1388
The Children guideline should be followed when sentencing adults for offences committed as children, considering the likely sentence at the time of the offence.
R v. Limon [2022] EWCA Crim 39
The passage of time does not increase an offender's culpability for offences committed as a child.
R v. Limon [2022] EWCA Crim 39
Outcomes
Appeals allowed in part for Nazir Ahmed, reducing his sentence.
The original sentence was deemed excessive, particularly regarding count 1. The court adjusted the sentence to reflect the likely sentence at the time of the offences.
Appeals allowed in part for David Stansfield, reducing his sentence.
The court adjusted the sentence to reflect the likely sentence at the time of the offences, correcting errors in culpability assessment and considering the appellant's age.
Appeal dismissed for Steven Priestley regarding counts 5-11, allowed in part for counts 1-4.
The court found that the sentence for counts 1-4 was excessive given the limitations on sentencing powers at the time of the offending.
Appeal allowed for RW, significantly reducing his sentence.
The original sentence failed to adequately consider the appellant's age and diminished culpability at the time of the offences.
Appeal allowed for Peter Hodgkinson, reducing his sentence.
The court found that the original sentence exceeded the maximum available sentence at the time of the offences, adjusting the sentence to reflect this.