Teenager who stabbed shop worker and caused second man’s death later the same day given longer sentence after Crown appeal

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] HCJAC 10
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary
• Judge:
  Lord Beckett

EK, who at age 15 tendered a plea of guilty, was originally given an extended sentence of six years and four months with a custodial term of three years and four months. It was undisputed that the imposition of an extended sentence was incompetent, but the Crown further argued that the sentence had been unduly lenient.

The appeal was heard by the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Beckett, with Lord Matthews and Lady Wise. Keenan KC, advocate depute, appeared for the Crown and Lenehan LKC and McTaggart, advocate, for the respondent.

Poor impulse control

On 12 April 2024, along with another person, the respondent entered a shop where the complainer in the first charge was working. He challenged the complainer to come outside, accusing him of providing alcohol to an underaged girl, and struck him on the arm with a knife. He was arrested later that evening and was released on an undertaking to attend court on 30 April.

The respondent was collected from the police station by his mother, who intended to drive him home. However, he got out of the car at a set of traffic lights and came upon a heavily intoxicated man beside an unoccupied parked car used by his father. The respondent accused the man of urinating on his father’s car and punched him once on the head, causing the man to fall to the ground and sustain the head injury from which he died.

The trial judge passed sentence on 18 October 2024. He reasoned that, given the appellant’s age at the time of the offence, the appropriate cumulo detention period would be five years, reduced by a third for the guilty plea. The respondent was assessed as presenting a high risk of violent offending, demonstrating poor impulse control and the use of violence to manage his anger.

For the Crown it was submitted that it was incompetent to impose a custodial term of less than four years for a violent offence. The risk of harm presented by the respondent was such that an extended sentence was necessary in order to protect the public from serious harm from him. The sentence was also unduly lenient taking into account the respondent’s determination to confront the complainer in charge 1 and the unprovoked nature of the attack in charge 2.

Senior counsel for the respondent observed that he was assessed as having a below average level of cognitive functioning and had made good progress in the secure unit in which he was detained. He expressed considerable remorse and insight into the consequences of his conduct in charge 2.

Exceptionally grave harm

Lord Beckett, delivering the opinion of the court, began: “Both of the crimes committed were serious and merited detention. Charge 1 involved the use of a knife to cause injury, albeit not of a severe kind. Charge 2 could not have had graver consequences. A family is left grieving the sudden and wholly unjustified loss of a man of 70 who was deeply loved. On the other hand, the respondent was a young offender, 15 at the time of the crime and when sentence was passed, and fell to be treated differently from a person aged 25 or over.”

He continued: “Given his age, any sentence should be less than would be imposed on an adult. He has greater prospects of rehabilitation than an older person and is to be regarded as less culpable. As someone under the age of 18, his best interests are a primary consideration. Nevertheless, the gravity of his offending on both charges, and the exceptionally grave harm caused on charge 2, was such that detention and a period of extension was necessary in order to protect the public from serious harm in a way which ordinary licence conditions could not be expected to achieve.”

Considering the law on sentencing, Lord Beckett noted: “For a crime of violence, the minimum sentence of detention permitting an extended sentence is a custodial term of 4 years. As the sentencing judge candidly acknowledged in his report, the sentence imposed was accordingly incompetent and we quash it and impose sentence of new.”

He concluded on leniency: “Whilst it caused death for which the respondent bears criminal responsibility, there was a single punch on charge 2, albeit sufficiently forceful to cause the deceased to fall to the ground and strike his head with fatal consequences. Noting also the terms of charge 1 and its aggravating circumstances, we are not persuaded that the sentencing judge erred in his selection of the individual sentences; 4 years on charge 2 and 2 years on charge 1. We do not consider that he showed undue leniency.”

The court therefore imposed an extended sentence of seven years with a custodial term of four years and a three-year extension period.