About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] EWCA Crim 1391
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  England and Wales Court of Appeal

It was argued on behalf of the appellant, referred to as “TJ”, that the sentencing judge had treated him too much like an adult when sentencing him, and was wrong to decide that he presented further danger given his age. The appellant was originally given a sentence of four years and four months of imprisonment and a further licence period of three years for the most serious of the offences, with concurrent sentences of various types imposed for the other offences.

The appeal was heard in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal by Lord Justice Singh, Mrs Justice May and Mrs Justice Thornton. Ms R Pain appeared on behalf of the appellant and Ms J Sodipo for the Crown.

Violent rampage

On 27 November 2022, the appellant attacked 19-year-old Alfie England whilst on a bus, for which he was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. In April 2023, he received a referral order following a conviction for possessing a machete in public. While he was on bail for the offence against Mr England, of which he pled guilty, he embarked on what the court described as a “violent rampage”, attacking a man in the street, Mr Raymond Hood, after demanding money from him and offering him drugs.

Following the attack on Mr Hood, in which the appellant repeatedly stamped on his head and strangled him, he robbed a 16-year-old boy, C, of his phone and watch and then robbed a mobile phone repair shop along with some of his friends. The attack on Mr Hood and the robbery of the store were both captured on CCTV. In addition, the appellant caused C’s school to be placed on lockdown after going to the school and waving a knife around, for which he was charged of possession of a bladed article on school premises.

The sentencing judge focused his sentence on the most serious assault, on Mr Hood, and determined that it would merit a sentence of 13 years’ imprisonment for an adult. He reduced this by half to account for the appellant’s age and then by a further third to reflect his guilty plea. He considered the appellant to be a dangerous offender and that his behaviour suggested a significant risk of him continuing to pose a threat to the public in future.

At a preliminary hearing, another judge determined that counsel for the appellant’s argument that the Recorder did not adopt the right approach to sentencing should not be allowed to proceed. However, he accepted that the second argument, on future risk to the public, could proceed, noting that the appellant did not have many previous convictions prior to this set of offences

Completely unprovoked attack

In her opinion, directly addressing the appellant, Justice May began by noting: “We agree with the Recorder that yours was a difficult sentencing exercise. You are very young, and you have experienced violence in your home whilst growing up which is a hard thing for any child to see. The doctors who have assessed you have explained that the violence you saw as a child will have affected you and contributed to the reasons why you are violent towards others.”

However, she continued: “You had to be sentenced for a series of completely unprovoked and violent attacks on ordinary people going about their business. In the case of Mr Hood, he was much older than you and he told you he had been very unwell, yet you still launched a vicious attack on him. All three of your victims have talked about the distressing impacts that your violence has had on their lives.”

Considering the arguments on future risk, May J said: “We accept that young people like you can be impulsive and that violent behaviour can be a phase that passes quickly as a young person matures. In light of your age and the fact that you only have one previous conviction for possession of a machete, we have considered very carefully whether the judge was right in his conclusion about you. We accept that you have not previously received any support by way of a youth rehabilitation order or a detention and training order.”

She added: “Nonetheless, we have come to the view that the judge was entitled to assess you as dangerous. In deciding this our focus is on the risk of serious harm you are thought to present to the public in the future. It is not about further punishment of you. In March 2024, you went on a violent rampage, attacking three different people in completely unprovoked attacks on the same day. Your attack on Raymond Hood continued while he was lying on the floor defenceless. These three attacks came after your unprovoked assault on Alfie England when all he was doing was sitting on a bus watching a film. They also came after your conviction for possession of a machete. The probation officer who assessed you considers you are a dangerous offender.”

May J concluded: “Due to your age the Recorder should have imposed sentences of detention and training orders pursuant to section 234 of the Sentencing Act 2020. The minimum term for a detention and training order is 4 months under section 236 of the Sentencing Act. This means the sentence of 4 weeks for the assault on Alfie England is an unlawful sentence and requires correction. For the offence of grievous bodily harm against Mr Hood the Recorder pronounced the determinate sentence as 4 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. Given your age the sentence should have been one of ‘detention’ not ‘imprisonment’.”

Accordingly, the court quashed the concurrent sentences imposed on the appellant, with no effect on the headline sentence of seven years and four months.