Mon - Fri 09:00 - 18.00
Central Court 25 Southampton Buildings London WC2A 1AL
Tel: +44 020 7936 3637
DX 458 London Chancery Lane
Chambers provides an out of hours service. If you call Chambers main number you will be diverted to the clerk on call who will be able to deal with your enquiry.
The appellant was convicted of manslaughter and acquitted of murder, he appealed against the sentence of 9 years detention in a YOI.
Some time after an argument about whose turn it was to play pool the appellant picked up a chair and either threw or pushed it at the deceased twice in quick succession. He then stamped on his genital area and his throat before running off. The chair leg had penetrated the deceased’s eyeball by three inches, and he died the following day. The appellant handed himself in to the police when he heard about his death and admitted hitting him in the eye with a chair. In interview he claimed self-defence, which was subsequently rejected by the jury.
He was 17 years and 7 months at the time of the offence. The sentencing judge said that but for his age the sentence would have been 12 years, reduced to 9 years to account for it.
The defence argued that the judge had not given adequate weight to the overreaching principles as set out in the guideline for children and young people. The appellant was 18 when he was sentenced but it was submitted that age, maturity and progress of the young offender should be considered even when technically an adult, with which the Court of Appeal agreed. The guideline refers to a reduction of one half to two thirds of the adult sentence, in giving a reduction of 25% it was argued the judge failed to take account of the immaturity and the impact of this on decision making and lack of insight into offending.
Held: the reduction is a rough guide and must not be applied mechanistically, the suggestion that the appellant was “entitled” to a discount of one half to two thirds is misconceived. The sentence was not wrong in principle simply because the judge did not explain why he gave a lesser discount. It is a matter for the sentencing judge as to what, if any, discount is given to a young offender in a particular case. The judge concluded that the nature of the offending and the high culpability of the appellant despite his youth only justified a reduction of 25% from the adult sentence he would have passed. That approach cannot be criticised.
The appeal was dismissed.
Church Court Chambers’ Lewis Power QC and Michael Polak appeared at Kingston Crown Court for a four-week retrial for the... more
On 8 October 2021, Jibreel Tramboo appeared at the Upper Tribunal before Upper Tribunal Judge Smith in a claim for Judicial... more
Benjamin Aina QC and Maria Karaiskos conclude their 10 week trial at Southwark Crown Court, prosecuting the Crossharbour... more
Ciara McElvogue was instructed to represent the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) at an inquiry before the Judicial Panel... more
Following the seismic shift in the relationship between the UK and the EU post 11 pm on 31 December 2020 (Brexit day), the... more
On Thursday 16 September 2021, the appeal hearing was held in the Supreme Court of Cyprus in Nicosia. Lewis Power QC and... more
Church Court Chamber’s barrister Michael Polak chaired two panels at the ground-breaking conference hosted by Newcastle... more
Yasin Patel has been instructed to represent the World Martial Arts Champion in various disciplinary and legal proceedings. The... more
We are immensely proud to announce that Guy Williamson BEM QPM of chambers has been appointed as the Vice Chairman to the British... more
Jibreel has a broad mixed common law practice bringing added depth and breadth to Chambers’ sports, civil, immigration and... more
Maria Karaiskos is praised by the Court of Appeal for her written and oral submissions as she successfully defends her client’s... more
A young boy has been acquitted of Murder and Manslaughter by a Jury after a 36-day trial at the Old Bailey. Represented by Sarah... more