Richard Barraclough KC in the Court of Appeal

On 4.9.25 in the Court of Appeal,  Richard Barraclough KC responded to the appeal of QASIM against the minimum term of 30 years set by the trial judge in Birmingham for a murder related to a drug gang dispute.

The appellant was 22 years old at the time of the murder. He pleaded that insufficient mitigation had been given for his youth and immaturity when set against the aggravating features of planning and disposing of the weapon.

The Crown argued that the sentencing judge did give credit for age and immaturity and was right to offset that credit by the planning which itself reflected on maturity in that:

• He played a central role in luring the dealer to the scene of the attack;
• He armed himself with intent to do at least GBH should it be necessary;
• He played the role of the customer, used the knife, removed drugs from the car after stabbing the deceased and disposed of the weapon;
• He led the way through the alleys by a predetermined route and away from the scene;
• He led the way as the conspirators separated into two groups and disguised themselves by changing clothing;
• He and a fellow conspirator who was also sentenced to a minimum term of 30 years, he being the “architect” of the conspiracy, adopted a strategy of escaping the jurisdiction and returning when strategically advantageous to him.
• He then ran the defence that he was an innocent stooge and had no knife; that the dealer had accidentally stabbed the deceased.

Two others were tried after the appellant and the other had escaped the jurisdiction. If they had been tried together the appellant would have been faced with the defendant in the first trial who gave evidence at his trial saying that the appellant had told him where he had hidden the knife and had admitted stabbing the deceased “gently”.

The appellant relied on R v ZA 2023 EWCA Crim 596

It has been recognised for some time that the brains of young people are still developing up to the age of 25, particularly in the areas of the frontal cortex and hippocampus. These areas are the seat of emotional control, restraint, awareness of risk and the ability to appreciate the consequences of one’s own and others’ actions; in short, the processes of thought engaged in by, and the hallmark of, mature and responsible adults. It is also known that adverse childhood experiences, educational difficulties and mental health issues negatively affect the development of those adult thought processes. Accordingly very particular considerations apply to sentencing children and young people who commit offences. It is categorically wrong to set about the sentencing of children and young people as if they are “mini-adults”. An entirely different approach is required.

Age can be a mitigating feature under Schedule 21.

The Court commented the Schedule 21 considerations as to age did not leave room for manoeuvre and R v ZA was not a murder case. Statute provided for the starting point to reflect the age of 18 and more. Some particular immaturity may justify moving the starting point down. There was no evidence of any particular immaturity in this case.