Legal Commentary
| Date | 01 August 2002 |
| Author | Nigel Stone |
| DOI | 10.1177/147322540200200205 |
| Published date | 01 August 2002 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Legal Commentary
Age, Jurisdiction, Secure Remands and Sentencing
Powers: A Miscellany of Issues
Nigel Stone
Correspondence: Nigel Stone, School of Social Work and Psychosocial Studies,
University of East Anglia, Elizabeth Fry Building, Norwich NR4 7TJ. Email
n.stoneVuea.ac.uk
One aspect of the inevitable intricacies posed in youth justice by boundaries relating to age
and eligibility for particular types of sentence was explored in Volume 2 Number 1 of this
journal (Stone, 2002: 47–9), namely the imposition of shorter terms of s.91 detention for the
under-15s. The same broad theme has been addressed in a cluster of more recent judgements
which can conveniently be analysed together, alongside an important ruling on the remand of
boys aged 15/16 into custody/secure accommodation.
Attaining Age 18: Powers of Sentence
A young adult aged 18 is convicted by a court which concludes that the offence is so serious
that only a custodial sentence is justified. Is the offender eligible to receive a detention and
training order (DTO)? The answer would appear to be a clear-cut negative, given that the
statutory provision governing DTOs, Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000
(PCC(S)A) s.100, specifies that this form of custodial sentence may be passed in respect of any
person aged under 18 who is convicted of an offence which is punishable with imprisonment.
The appropriate form of sentence for an offender of that age would seem straightforwardly a
term of detention in a young offender institution. It is clear from R v Cassidy (2000) Times 13
October (following R v Danga [1992] QB 476), a case involving a young man, aged 17 at age
of conviction but aged 18 at point of sentence, that ‘the determining factor in relation to
sentencing is, generally, the age of the offender at the date of conviction’. This age boundary
has important implications in regard to the maximum length of detention that may be imposed
by magistrates (24 months DTO in contrast to six months YOI for a single offence), and the
way in which credit is gained for any time spent on custodial remand. Many offenders in this
age group may thus wish to have the benefits accruing to those who fall to be treated as young
adults. However, outside of the specific provisions of PCC(S)A 2000 a long-standing generic
provision gives a court discretion to treat the offender as a youth for sentencing purposes, even
though he was an adult at point of conviction. The Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA)
1963 s.29(1) states that where proceedings are begun (that is initial court appearance) in respect
of a young person and s/he attains adulthood before the conclusion of proceedings, ‘the court
may continue to deal with the case and make any order which it could have made if he (sic)
had not attained that age’. This apparent inconsistency was posed in Aldis v Director of Public
Prosecutions (2002) Times 6 March.
The offender in Aldis was convicted after trial by a magistrates’court of two offences of s18
wounding committed when he was aged 17. His 18th birthday occurred after the court had
decided that he could be dealt with summarily (under Magistrates Courts Act (MCA) 1980
s.24), despite being charged with indictable only offences, on the basis that it was not a matter
that justified detention for grave crimes under PCC(S)A 2000 s.91, but before the hearing of
evidence. On conviction he was sentenced to two terms of DTO, 18 months and 10 months
To continue reading
Request your trial