Denise appeared to represent a Youth (‘S’) who was recently sentenced at the Crown Court for two offences of Dwelling Burglary (Contrary to S.9(1)(b) Theft Act 1968).
Prior to these proceedings, ‘S’ was of previous good character but was jointly charged alongside two male adults, one was subject to the mandatory minimum 3 strike rule and the matter was sent to the Crown Court. ‘S’ pleaded guilty at the Crown Court PTPH. Denise made three separate applications for the case to be remitted to the Youth Court for sentence. ‘S’ fulfilled the criteria for a Referral Order (S.17 Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000) and could properly be distinguished from his adult co-defendant’s. All 3 applications were refused by two different Judges. ‘S’ was ultimately sentenced by the Crown Court to a 24-month Youth Rehabilitation Order.
Denise appealed the sentence on the grounds that it was wrong in principle and manifestly excessive; the YRO being a more onerous order which becomes spent six months after completion, whereas the maximum length of a Referral Order is 12 months and is spent upon completion. The Crown opposed the application contending that there would further delay, duplication, expense and that the YRO was necessary and proportionate.
The Appeal was entirely successful and the Crown Court sentence was quashed. The case against ‘S’ has now been remitted to the Youth Court for him to receive the appropriate Referral Order and Denise was commended by the Court for her tenacity.