Clarke, Andrews & Thompson [2018] EWCA Crim 185

The defendants were aged 17, 18 and 19 years, the Attorney-General applied for leave to refer their sentences as unduly lenient arguing that only Andrews should have received a discount by virtue of his youth as he was the only one aged under 18 at the time of the offending. Andrews appealed against sentence on the ground it was manifestly excessive, making a similar point.

One of the offences to be sentenced was perverting the course of justice where the original offence had been aggravated burglary. Two of the defendants had entered the house of the witnesses with weapons. The AG argued s125 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 required the judge to consider the sentencing guideline on aggravated burglary, submitting that the guideline was relevant because of the coincidence of at least many of the factual circumstances. The Court of Appeal disagreed saying that they did not consider that a judge had a duty to consider guidelines to help with range finding in a case for which no guidelines exist.

On behalf of the AG it was also argued that the circumstances underpinning this case should lead to the conclusion that any notional reduction in sentences to reflect youth should have been minimal. This was also rejected by the Court, “such a feature may be a potent factor in determining the eventual sentence.”

Leave was refused both to appeal and for leave to refer as unduly lenient.