Young adults
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550520933723a |
| Published date | 01 September 2020 |
| Date | 01 September 2020 |
for a Category 2 offence, three years’ imprisonment. The Court of Appeal indicated
that it did not consider that ‘a woman who is four to six weeks pregnant is neces-
sarily and invariably to be regarded as particularly vulnerable’ within the Guide-
line. That is a matter to be determined on a case-by-case basis. However, taking
account of the other circumstances, including in particular the aftermath in which V.
had felt it necessary to leave her home, the judge had been entitled to deem this high
culpability crime a Category 1 offence and the sentence had not been manifestly
excessive.
R v ANGLIS, [2020] 1 Cr App R(S) 37.
Young adults
Significance of age/sentencing powers at time of crime
Ten months before his 18th birthday A., accompanied by other intoxicated young
men whom he later referred to as ‘my boys’, broke into a residential garden where a
party was just ending, armed with knives and wearing disguise, intent on findingand
punishing whoever was believed tohave flirted with A.’s girlfriend.Having terrorised
and sought to interrogate the remaining guests, who did not seek to fight back or
retaliate, theykicked and punched one of the hostswho sustained seven stab wounds
once he had fallen to the ground, though it could not be established who had been
directly responsible. Other guestswere punched and kicked and one was robbed. A.
and two accomplices were prosecuted for violent disorder and he was sentenced to
four years YOI detention following contested trial, being now aged 18. The judge
indicated that proper recognition had been given to A.’s youthful age but identified
his high level of culpability in this very violent and totally unprovoked attack while a
trespasser on private property, arranged and directed byhim, motivated by revenge
and his wish to enforce his will on others. He had one previous conviction, for ABH
assault, attracting a referral order six months prior to the current crime.
On his appeal against sentence, it was argued that the judge should have taken
as the starting point the sentence likely to have been imposed on the date on which
the offence was committed, when he was aged 17. At that point, the maximum
sentence available to the court would have been a detention and training order of
24 months. The Definitive Guideline on sentencing children and young persons
(2017), reflecting past case authority (notably Ghafoor), states:
Where any significant age threshold is passed [between offence and sentence], it will
rarely be appropriate that a more severe sentence than the maximum that the court
could have imposed at the time the offence was committed should be imposed. How-
ever, a sentence at or close to the maximum may be appropriate. (6.3)
In this instance, the judge had made no reference to that guidance or prior cases
addressing this issue. The starting point should have been 24 months’ custody and
the Court of Appeal concluded, notwithstanding the obvious aggravating factors,
In court 311
To continue reading
Request your trial