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.
Kerim Fuad QC is proud to be advising Sir Stelios and his wonderful Philanthropic Foundation, on this occasion in Nicosia,... more
Pamela Brain secured the acquittal of a consultant accused of defrauding the NHS of approximately £133,000 over a 2-year period... more
The Church Court Chargers had their first outing last night on a wonderful 10k charity run along the Thames with over a thousand... more
Liam Loughlin was instructed by Stewart Begum Solicitors to appeal the case of FA, a young person who was convicted of... more
In a case where the 7 other defendants were found guilty, the Church Court Chambers team of Lewis Power QC leading Michael Polak... more
Chambers’ International Practice Group is delighted to announce that Kerim Fuad QC has been appointed by Sir Stelios... more
The Applicant had been made the subject of a Confiscation Order in 2013 following conviction for dishonesty offences. In 2014,... more
Church Court Chambers are delighted to welcome Nazmeen Imambaccus as a full tenant following the successful completion of her... more
Paul Addison secures conviction at Woolwich Crown Court against a man who attempted to rape his 2 year old daughter in the... more
At an FA Appeal Tribunal held at Wembley Stadium, Yasin Patel, representing a leading football club successfully overturned an FA... more
A young man, represented by Yasin Patel was acquitted of serious charges of a Conspiracy to inflict Grievous Bodily Harm... more
Tomas McGarvey has secured the unanimous acquittal of a 24-year old London based man accused of organising and directing the... more