YOUNG OFFENDERS

Taking into account the exceptional circumstances, a sentence of 30 months’ detention imposed upon a 17-year-old offender for rape of a child under 13 was excessive where the offender had had consensual sexual intercourse with a 12-year-old girl, believing her to be nearly 15 years of age. The appropriate sentence was a 12 month detention and training order.

A sentence of two years’ detention was not appropriate in the case of a 14-year-old boy who had committed sexual offences against his eight-year-old cousin; the evidence showed that he did not pose a real risk to others and a custodial sentence would not be in the interests of his welfare. A supervision order for a term of three years was imposed instead.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.82 was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.8 in subjecting certain sex offenders to notification requirements indefinitely without the opportunity for review. As a matter of principle, an offender was entitled to have the question of whether the notification requirements continued to serve a legitimate purpose determined on a review.

Sentences of nine and six years’ detention for two young offenders convicted of rape and, in one case, grievous bodily harm were unduly lenient where the female victim, who was just 16, had been subjected to a group sex attack and had caustic soda thrown over her. The sentences were increased to 14 and 9 years’ detention.

A sentence of detention for public protection with a minimum term of two years imposed for attempted rape was manifestly excessive as the offender was only 16, was of previous good character and had pleaded guilty at the earliest point. The sentence was replaced with one of three years’ detention.

It was compatible with a child’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.8 to convict him of rape contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.5 in circumstances where the agreed basis of plea established that his offence also fell properly within the ambit of s.13.

A sentence of a three-year supervision order imposed on a 17-year-old for offences of sexual assault on a child under 13 and causing a child to engage in sexual activity was not unduly lenient, as the long-term need for public protection required appropriate intervention that would not be provided by the imposition of a detention and training order.

Offences committed by a young offender contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.13 were not serious specified offences for the purposes of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

A youth court’s decision to decline jurisdiction and commit youths charged with an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.13 to the Crown Court for trial was manifestly wrong as there was no real prospect of the imposition of a custodial sentence of over two years in length.