Stokes, R. v [2020] EWCA Crim 162

No: 201904318/A2
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION[2020] EWCA 162
Venue Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LLDate Tuesday 4 February 2020
B e f o r e:
LADY JUSTICE SIMLER
MR JUSTICE LAVENDER
SIR PETER OPENSHAW
R E G I N A v
BYRON STOKES
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of Epiq Europe Ltd, Lower Ground, 18-22
Furnival Street, London EC4A 1JS, Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
This transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.
WARNING: Reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.
Mr G Bedloe appeared on behalf of the Appellant
J U D G M E N T
(Draft for approval)
Between
StokesDefendantRCrown
[1]passed. The sentence should have been announced as a sentence of detention. amount of £30 must be substituted. guilty until the day of trial.[6]occasioning actual bodily harm in 2012 and a youth caution for battery in 2016. unpaid work requirements.[8]statement, Alex Smith had not fully recovered from the physical injuries sustained and his eyesight remained affected. He was no longer playing football and felt anxious about going out in the Brixton area. By the time of the second statement he had made a full recovery from his eye injuries, though was still not playing football. No victim impact statement was provided by Josh Smith. friendly game.[11]afforded 10 per cent credit, bringing the sentence down to 27 months.[12]Although Mr Bedloe accepts that it is most likely that he did not refer the Recorder to the Guideline he nonetheless contends that the Recorder failed to give sufficient weight to the appellant's youth and immaturity at the time of the offence in accordance with that guideline. He relies in particular on paragraph 6.3 which makes clear that where a significant age threshold is passed, 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. He also relies on paragraph 6.42 which states that a custodial sentence must only be imposed as a measure of last resort; paragraph 6.43 which states that any custodial sentence must be the shortest commensurate with the seriousness of the offence; and paragraph 6.44 which states in determining whether an offence has crossed the custody threshold, the court must assess the seriousness of the offence, in particular the level of harm that was caused or was likely to have been caused, and must assess the risk of serious harm in the future. Finally, he relies on paragraph 6.46 which provides that when considering any relevant adult guideline the court should apply a discount depending on both chronological age and also, at least of equal importance, the emotional and developmental age and maturity of the child or young person. Mr Bedloe submits that in this case had the appellant been sentenced at the Youth Court, the[13]maximum sentence would have been a sentence of detention of 24 months. imposition of a suspended sentence in this case.[15]trial, as we have indicated, the starting point would have been three years.[16]the appellant entered his guilty pleas on the date of trial and not earlier. would have been adopted.[18]particularly relevant in this regard. They provide as follows:
"6.1 There will be occasions when an increase in the age of a child or young person will result in the maximum sentence on the date of the finding of guilt being greater than that available on the date on which the offence was committed (primarily turning 12, 15 or 18 years old). 6.2. In such situations the court should take as its starting point the sentence likely to have been imposed on the date at which the offence was committed. This includes young people who attain the age of 18 between the commission and the finding of guilt of the offence26 but when this occurs the purpose of sentencing adult offenders27 has to be taken into account, which is: • the punishment of offenders; • the reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence); • the reform and rehabilitation of offenders; • the protection of the public; and • the making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences. 6.3 When any significant age threshold is passed 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. However, a sentence at or close to that maximum may be appropriate."
Had the appellant been sentenced at the Youth Court, Mr Bedloe is correct that the maximum sentence available would have been two years' detention. That sentence would have been available in the case of a persistent offender. Here, this was a nasty assault involving two victims, but Alex Smith made a full recovery. In those circumstances, and having regard to the maximum sentence available, it is our view that it would not have been appropriate to pass a more severe sentence than that maximum, having regard to the appellant's age.[20]appropriate punishment can only be achieved by immediate custody in this case. In light of these conclusions, we consider that the shortest sentence commensurate with the seriousness of the offending and having regard to mitigation and credit for guilty pleas, was a sentence of detention of 12 months. We therefore quash the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Recorder and substitute for it a sentence of immediate detention of 12 months. The concurrent sentence of nine months' detention is undisturbed. To that extent only, the appeal is allowed. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground, 18-22 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1JS Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk