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.
Following conversation with his wife in the kitchen in May 2016, began George Hepburne-Scott’s involvement in a case that was... more
S v Eastleigh Borough Council Mike Fullerton succeeds in overturning revocation of dog-breeding licence before First Tier... more
On 25 August 2020, in the case of Greece v AS, George’s client was discharged on the EAW he faced on Article 3 grounds... more
Michael Mather-Lees QC successfully defends a man charged with multiple attempted murders, severely injuring 3 innocent members... more
Colin Witcher of Chambers Crime and Regulatory Team represented the first defendant NH at a fully contested hearing, over the... more
Church Court Chambers’ Michael Polak has submitted communications to the Independent Expert on Human Rights in Somalia, the... more
The World Uyghur Congress has instructed Church Court Chambers’ international human rights barrister Michael Polak who also... more
On 10th October 2019 at 3.19 pm, a boy boarded the 241 bus on the way to Stratford wearing a balaclava and armed with a very... more
Church Court Chambers’ international human rights and criminal law barrister Michael Polak has been instructed to advise in the... more
Maria Karaiskos appeared at Southwark Crown Court in a multi-million pound money laundering case. Maria’s client was a ‘cash... more
Church Court Chambers are delighted to announce its second webinar of the summer, following on from the hugely successful “Jury... more