R v AC
[2023] EWCA Crim 973
ZA v R
26 May 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 596
Court of Appeal
A teenager was wrongly given a long sentence for robbery. The court made a mistake by not following the right rules for sentencing young people. His sentence was made shorter because he was young and had already spent time in jail. The judges said there needs to be special rules for young people because their brains aren't fully developed.
Key Facts
- •The appellant, a 17-year-old at sentencing, was involved in a conspiracy to rob taxi drivers, resulting in the death of one driver, Gabriel Bringye.
- •The appellant pleaded guilty to possession of a bladed article and conspiracy to steal, and was convicted of conspiracy to rob; he was acquitted of murder and manslaughter.
- •The appellant was initially sentenced to 5 years detention but appealed.
- •The appellant was 15 at the time of the offending.
- •The appellant had no prior convictions and showed remorse.
- •Dr. Halsey's report indicated the appellant was suggestible and compliant, potentially influenced by others.
Legal Principles
Sentencing children and young people requires a different approach than sentencing adults, focusing on preventing future offending and the child's welfare.
Sentencing Council guideline Sentencing Children and Young People, section 58 of the Sentencing Code
When sentencing for robbery, courts must follow a stepped approach outlined in the youth robbery guideline, considering harm, culpability, aggravating and mitigating factors, personal mitigation, and finally reviewing the sentence's appropriateness.
Sentencing Council guideline Robbery, Sentencing Children and Young People
Custodial sentences should be a last resort for children and young people. If custody is deemed necessary, the court must explain why alternative sentences, such as a Youth Rehabilitation Order with Intensive Supervision and Surveillance (YRO with ISS), are not suitable.
Sentencing Council guideline Sentencing Children and Young People, section 6.42
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed.
The original sentence was wrong in principle and manifestly excessive due to the failure to adequately consider the youth robbery guideline and the individualistic approach required for sentencing young people. The judge improperly considered the death of Mr Bringye in relation to the appellant's sentence, despite the acquittal on manslaughter. The court found the sentence too high given the mitigating factors and the time already served.
The appellant's sentence was reduced from 5 years detention to 3 years detention.
This reflected the seriousness of the single robbery, the mitigating factors (age, lack of prior convictions, remorse, suggestibility), and the time already served.
The concurrent sentences for theft and possession of a bladed article were quashed and replaced with an order for no separate penalty.
These offences were not considered grave enough to warrant separate custodial sentences given the appellant's age and guilty pleas.