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.
Maria Karaiskos prosecutes a prison officer for Misconduct in Public Office at HMP Swaleside. The prison officer had a... more
Church Court Chambers stands united with Essex Court Chambers and its members, following the decision of the Chinese Government... more
Liam Loughlin secures a suspended sentence for his client caught smuggling a large amount of cannabis in to the United Kingdom... more
A teenager on trial for serious violent offences was acquitted by a jury following a trial. The incident occurred in the home... more
The client of Church Court Chambers’ Michael Polak, journalist Kilwe Farah, was released on Monday 22 March 2021. Michael was... more
On 22 March 2021, George Hepburne Scott’s client, P.T. was discharged by a District Judge at Westminster Magistrates’... more
On Thursday 18 March 2021 Church Court Chambers’ barrister Michael Polak spoke on the Centre for Turkey Studies’ Panel on... more
On 18 March 2021, George Hepburne Scott’s client, B.F, an Antiguan national, was sensationally discharged from his... more
Chiara Maddocks, Fiona McAddy and Amy Hazlewood feature in this years SEC Twitter campaign celebrating International Women’s... more
Today is International Women’s Day 2021. This year’s theme is “Choose To Challenge”. Today we celebrate the Women... more
Church Court Chambers’ Michael Polak, who is instructed by the family of the journalist Kilwe Farah and is acting with the... more
Amy Hazlewood of chambers has been awarded a Criminal Bar Association Bursary. This a highly sought after award in a very... more