In making its sentencing decision the Youth Court should take into account any undisputed fact put forward in mitigation, such as the good character of the accused, and the Youth Court must consider the sentencing powers of the Crown Court under section 91(3) and the guidance that has been given as to their exercise – ‘If, on the basis of that guidance, there is no real possibility of such a sentence, committal is inappropriate.’ and ‘Was the decision of the Youth Court wrong? The test is one appropriate to a review court rather than one making the original decision. Parliament has clearly given the original decision to the Youth Court, and in terms that admit of some latitude: … There is normally a range of appropriate sentencing decisions available, and a sentence within that range cannot be said to be wrong: . . .It is not sufficient for the High Court to consider that it would have made a different decision under section 24(1) to that of the Youth Court. Only if the High Court is satisfied that the original decision was wrong may it interfere.’
Stanley Burnton J
[2003] EWHC 35 (Admin)
Bailii
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 24(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (Director of Public Prosecutions) v Camberwell Youth Court; Regina (H) v Camberwell Youth Court QBD 23-Jul-2004
The DPP sought directions as to the issuing of voluntary bills of indictment to have transferred to the Crown Court, allegations of robbery against youths between 12 and 14.
Held: A child convicted of an offence for which an adult would . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Magistrates, Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.184929
