A Previous post looked at the the sentencing of young offenders for very serious offences - Law and Lawyers: Youth Justice and sentencing for very serious offences.
The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) has given judgment in X, Y and Z - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary [2026] EWCA Crim (845) - Lady Carr LCJ, Edis LJ, Norton J.
The case concerned three offenders, X, Y and Z who were convicted (after a 29 day trial in the Crown Court) of rape and other sexual offending committed at Fordingbridge, Hampshire against two separate complainants, C1 and C2 on two separate occasions.
The first incident was on 26 November 2024 (involving all three offenders) and the second incident on 17 January 2025 (involving X and Y only).
Each
offender had pleaded guilty shortly before trial to offences of taking indecent photographs of a child.X and Y were both aged 14 at the date of the first and second incidents, and 15 at the date of conviction and sentence. Z was 13 at the date of the second incident, and 14 at the date of conviction and sentence.
The complainants were also young. C1, the complainant in the first incident, was 15 at the relevant time; C2, the complainant in the second incident, was 14 years old.
The circumstances in which the offending took place, and the details of the individual offences are set out at paras [20] to [41] of the court's judgment to which reference should be made.
Specific findings made by the judge are set out at paras. [75] and [76].
The offenders were sentenced on 21 May 2026. In respect of X and Y, the judge passed a Youth Rehabilitation Order with Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme for a period of 3 years. In respect of Z he made a Youth Rehabilitation Order for a period of 18 months.
The requirements attached to each order included supervision, a curfew and compliance with specialist harmful sexual behaviour intervention.
The Attorney General sought and was granted leave to refer the sentences to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 on the ground that they were unduly lenient and ought to be increased.
It was argued that the extent and nature of the offending was so serious that non custodial sentences could not be justified and that sentences of detention should have been imposed on each child. In particular, it was argued that the judge had wrongly assessed the level of harm caused to the two complainants, and, in respect of X and Y, had had insufficient regard to the number of offences, and the fact that they had repeated their offending behaviour.
The Court of Appeal declined to review the sentence imposed on Z which was a perfectly roper sentence (para 157) and not unduly lenient.
For X and Y the Court of Appeal reached a different conclusion.
Their involvement in the two incidents, taken together, were such that an immediate and substantial sentence of detention was required. They participated, either as principals or as assisters or encouragers, in multiple rapes that were carried out in front of others, and in which the complainants were subjected to humiliation and degradation, in particular by the filming of the offences as they took place.
The court found that the judge had undervalued the seriousness of the offending, and the serious harm caused by it to the complainants.
Notwithstanding the young ages and vulnerabilities of the child offenders, custodial sentences were unavoidable for each of them.
The court quashed the sentences imposed on X and Y in the Crown Court, and imposed upon each of them sentences of 4 years’ detention under section 250 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
The court also quashed the 10 year restraining orders on X and Y and replaced them with indefinite restraining orders. At para 176 the court said:
The court declined to find that either X or Y was a dangerous offender under section 308 of the Sentencing Act 2020 such that an extended sentence was necessary. The young age of both boys meant that there was a real prospect of development, maturity and rehabilitation; neither child was considered to be at high risk of re-offending.
Finally and separately, the court made some comments about the administration of justice more generally. It expressed its concern about the inaccurate reporting and misinformed and inappropriate commentary by members of Parliament, the media and elsewhere that preceded this review and whilst legal proceedings were still ongoing.
The court was particularly critical of the conduct of the Crown Prosecution Service, which published a formal press release following the sentencing hearing which they knew, or should have known, was neither a fair nor accurate representation of the factual basis for sentence. It was this inaccurate press release that appeared to be the root of the misconceptions that followed, in particular the misconception that the offending involved a knife-point rape and that C2 had been forced to give up her phone to avoid tracking. This portrayed the offending as even more serious than it already was. It took almost three weeks for the Crown Prosecution Service to correct the inaccuracies.
Whether the court takes further action regarding the CPS remains to be seen. The judgment notes that - 'The Attorney General, ... , informed the court that ..... the CPS will be asked to provide the court and him with a full written letter of explanation. Upon receipt, the court will consider what further steps, if any, may be necessary.
Regarding the "knife", the Court of Appeal commented that - 'Any neutral and informed observer of the trial knew that the statement that the rape of C2 happened at “knife-point” was disputed on strong grounds. Any neutral and informed observer of the sentencing hearing knew that the judge had made a rational and well-supported finding on this issue, in favour of the offenders. No fair and accurate report of the sentencing proceedings could describe the rape of C2 as having happened “at knife-point”.
Sentencing Remarks:
As for publication of sentencing remarks, the court said
There is no indication of how, if at all, that might be addressed. The value of timely publication of sentencing remarks cannot be overstated. A great deal of inaccurate reporting might have been avoided if remarks had been available.
A court transcript of the sentencing was published on 4 June 2026 - Law and Lawyers: R v J, N and E - Transcript published of judge's remarks. The sentencing was on 21 May 2026.
Difficulty:
The Court of Appeal said (para 138) that 'Sentencing children who have been convicted of extremely serious offences is a difficult task.'
That is undoubtedly the case due to the many factors that have to be considered.
The Court of Appeal judgment is essential reading for anyone truly wishing to understand the complexities of this area of the law.
Is there a possible appeal?
Appeals to the Supreme Court of the UK are relatively few in criminal cases.
The Criminal Appeal Act 1968 provides that an appeal lies to the Supreme Court only with the leave of the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court; and shall not be granted unless it is certified by the Court of Appeal that a point of law of general public importance is involved in the decision and it appears to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court (as the case may be) that point is one which ought to be considered by the Supreme Court.
It is difficult to see anything in the case that would justify a further appeal. The Court of Appeal has applied the available sentencing law and reached conclusions which are plainly justifiable on the facts of the case. Nonetheless, it is wise to wait and see what, if anything, happens.
No comments:
Post a Comment