Court of Appeal Upholds Extended Sentences for Young Offender with Mental Health Conditions in R v Jodell Solomon

Citation: [2023] EWCA Crim 1375
Judgment on

Introduction

In the case of R v Jodell Solomon, the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) adjudicated on an appeal concerning the conviction and sentencing of the defendant, Jodell Solomon, for various offences including robbery, attempted theft, and having an offensive weapon. The appeal raised important legal principles regarding the sentencing of young offenders with mental health conditions, application of the totality principle, and imposition of extended sentences.

Key Facts

Jodell Solomon, at different ages, committed multiple offences resulting in two separate indictments. The first indictment involved three counts of robbery, attempted theft, handling stolen goods, possessing offensive weapons, attempted GBH, and property damage. The second indictment, after Solomon had escaped from custody, involved escape, attempted robbery, and robbery.

The defence counsel, Miss S Wright, pro bono, argued in the appeal that personal mitigating factors and the “Sentencing offenders with mental disorders, developmental disorders or neurological impairments” guidelines were inadequately considered, and that the totality principle was not applied correctly. They also opposed the finding that Solomon was dangerous in relation to the 2019 offences.

Several legal principles were addressed in the appeal judgement:

  1. Sentencing Young Offenders and Mental Health: The court analyzed Solomon’s mental health issues, including Autistic Spectrum Disorder and ADHD, in line with the sentencing guidelines for offenders with mental disorders. Despite the difficulties arising from his condition, experts concluded that his autism could not fully explain his violent offending.

  2. Dangerousness and Extended Sentences: Applying the principles related to assessing an offender’s dangerousness, the court considered Solomon’s entire pattern of behavior, including the escalation in the gravity of offences after his escape. The court upheld the extended sentences under sections 254 and 266 of the Sentencing Act 2020 rather than section 279, applicable to young offenders.

  3. Application of the Totality Principle: The appeal judgement discussed whether the sentences for multiple offences were just and proportionate in total, considering the number and seriousness of the crimes.

  4. Jurisdictional Errors: The court identified and rectified jurisdictional errors, such as the inapplicability of revoking a Youth Rehabilitation Order that had expired and the correction of sentences with respect to Solomon’s age at the time of the offences.

Outcomes

  1. The court confirmed the appropriateness of Solomon being sentenced as dangerous and affirmed most aspects of his sentencing given the severity and circumstances of the offences.

  2. Corrected jurisdictional errors were addressed, and the court made the necessary revisions, notably substituting imprisonment for a detention and training order where the defendant was underage.

  3. The sentences were adjusted to align with statutory provisions, substituting an extended sentence of detention under section 254 of the Sentencing Act 2020 for the first indictment and an extended sentence of detention in a young offender institution under section 266 for the second.

  4. The court quashed the order that had no power to be imposed due to its expiration and clarified that no separate penalty should be ordered.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal provided a meticulous adjudication on the application of legal principles concerning the sentencing of young offenders, particularly those with mental health disorders. The findings demonstrate the court’s emphasis on individualised sentencing, adherence to statutory guideposts, and the accurate assessment of dangerousness within the parameters of the law. The judgement underscores the imperative of ensuring that sentences are not only proportionate but are also statutorily sound and mindful of the offender’s age and mental health status at the time of the offences.