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.
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
A note from Islam Khan; new changes in the “Practice Statement” now give all tribunal caseworkers, working in... more
Colin Witcher, instructed by Lawtons Solictors, appeared successfully before the Court of Appeal in respect to an appeal against... more
Kerim Fuad QC, head of Church Court chambers, leads Paul Webb of chambers in the representation of a man who is alleged to have... more
Mike Fullerton recovered substantial damages for the Claimants in an action of Nuisance including a 30% Diminution in Value of... more
Islam Khan acted pro bono for a vulnerable employee in relation to a constructive dismissal claim against a large elderly care... more
Church Court Chambers’ criminal team grows stronger with the arrival of Elroy Claxton Elroy has over 30 years’ experience... more
Liam represented H at trial at Basildon Crown Court in relation to the possession with intent to supply of import quality cocaine... more
Islam Khan secures acquittal of his client at a significant multi-handed fraud trial at Kingston Crown Court. The allegations... more
Continuing the chambers trend of representing vulnerable clients facing the gravest and most serious charges, Yasin Patel... more