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.
A young boy has been acquitted of Murder and Manslaughter by a Jury after a 36-day trial at the Old Bailey. Represented by Sarah... more
As the furlough scheme starts to wind down from the start of this month, investigations in fraud under the scheme have started to... more
George Hepburne-Scott won another case in the High Court on 22 June 2021. The Appellant in the case of FT v Hungary was... more
In the case of PB v Spain, the Appellant had argued no less than nine grounds of appeal. This was a fascinating case: There... more
We are immensely proud to announce that Guy Williamson BEM QPM of chambers has been appointed as the legal advisor to the British... more
Shaun Esprit of Chambers Crime and Regulatory Team successfully secured the unanimous acquittal of a defendant who stood trial... more
On the 29th April, George secured permission to appeal in an extradition matter which was granted by Chamberlain J at a renewal... more
Colin Witcher of Church Court Chambers was invited to join forces with Claire Anderson of ABV Solicitors to present an open and... more
On 29 April 2021, George Hepburne-Scott was granted permission to appeal an extradition order make by the Deputy Chief Magistrate... more
Statement from Head of Chambers Kerim Fuad QC: “Joanna Toch is not a Member of, nor associated with, Church Court... more
George Hepburne-Scott claims a stunning victory in an Extradition case today, 1st June 2021, at Westminster Magistrates’ Court.... more
An International Cricketer who was accused of being one of “Cricket’s Match Fixers” has been cleared of alleged spot-fixing... more