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’ barrister Michael Polak secured his client a unanimous acquittal in a trial which finished today at... more
Yasin Patel, of Chambers Crime and Regulatory team managed to successfully obtain the acquittal of his client of a Murder charge... more
Alex Balancy leading Estelle Thornber secured the acquittal of their client on 14 Counts of Conspiracy to Supply and Offer to... more
Glenn Harris leading Liam Loughlin successfully defended a woman charged with conspiracy in London’s largest seizure of Chemsex... more
Islam khan invited to talk as immigration panellist to the Bangladeshi lawyers association on deportation and an update on the... more
George Hepburne Scott continues to enjoy a series of successes for his clients in Extradition cases at Westminster Magistrates’... more
Tonight at 7:30pm Andrew Taylor shall be on Times Radio talking about the A G References that are currently before the Court of... more
Colin Witcher of Chambers’ Crime and Regulatory Team led by Alisdair Williamson QC of 3 Raymond Buildings, defend in a case... more
Six members of Church Court Chambers have been ranked by the 2021 edition of the Legal 500, including our Head of Chambers, Kerim... more
On Saturday, the Head of Church Court Chambers, Kerim Fuad QC spoke on a panel for International Weekend, an event organised by... more
Mr Mather-Lees QC and Colin Witcher have begun an unusual and sensitive murder trial, which concerns the death of a victim four... more
S v Eastleigh Borough Council Mike Fullerton succeeds in overturning revocation of dog-breeding licence before First Tier... more