Mon - Fri 08.30 - 18.00
Second Floor Goldsmith Building Temple London EC4Y 7BL
Tel: +44 020 7936 3637
Fax: +44 020 7583 2061
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 are Delighted to Announce that we are Recruiting Two Pupils. Those pupillages shall start at the earliest... more
In 2017 the Competition & Markets Authority (“CMA”) found that Ping, a manufacturer of golf clubs, had infringed the... more
jkjhfgr eruighuihsgy8 sduihgsuhgouher eihgseui9gjsgp sdioughseiougnois... more
Pamela Brain secured the only acquittal by the jury in a Child Sexual Exploitation Case in Oxford. The case involved 4 defendants... more
Kerim Fuad QC, Head of Chambers, leading Colin Witcher of Chambers Crime and Regulatory Group, today secured the unanimous... more
Yasin Patel will be addressing an International Audience in Hamilton, New Zealand at an International Sports Law Conference.... more
Lewis Power QC has been described by the Belfast International Homecoming Committee as “a World renowned barrister”.... more
The times reports on the ongoing trial, which both Lewis Power QC and Michael Polak have acted on, about the alleged gang rape of... more
Please see the following schedule regarding the opening times for Church Court Chambers through the month of December and... more
On the 4th December 2019, Church Court Chambers’ Michael Polak was elected as President of the Middle Temple Young... more
Glenn Harris represented a woman, a foreign national, who was charged with importing approximately £21 million of high purity... more
For even the most dyed in the wool Conservative voter, Conservative Central Headquarters’ decision to rename their twitter... more