Mon - Fri 09:00 - 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.
Maria Karaiskos was instructed in a large scale Violent Disorder case at Luton Crown Court. The defendant she represented was one... more
Chris Johnston successful in the Court of Appeal in appeal against sentence, which highlighted the lack of sentencing guidelines... more
Michael Fullerton, Kevin Molloy and Michael Polak have all dusted the wig and gown off and returned to Crown Court for the first... more
On Friday 29 May 2020 Michael Polak spoke as part of a panel of experts on ‘Huawei’s Role in Mass Surveillance &... more
Church Court Chambers would like to thank all those who attended and took part in our first webinar, “Do you really want to... more
Kevin Molloy was instructed in a Firearms case at Woodgreen Crown Court. The defendant had ordered a blank firing gun and... more
Gregory Wedge of Chambers’ Crime and Regulatory Team, secured a successful appeal against sentence in respect to a £1.5... more
Church Court’s Michael Polak has been instructed to represent illustrator Greta Samuel. Greta published a political image... more
Chambers are hosting their first webinar on the past, present and future of jury trial on 21st May at... more
“Whilst I welcome the statement from the Lord Chancellor on proactive steps to be taken to resume Jury Trials, I wish to... more
Church Court Chambers’ international law and human rights barrister Michael Polak has been instructed by two British Uyghurs to... more
The British businessman Renwick Haddow represented by Yasin Patel has been informed that his bail application has been... more