Aims Of Sentencing – What Sentences Are Trying To Achieve: Young Offenders (Copy)
2.3.3 Aims of Sentencing – Young Offenders
Statutory Framework
- Children and Young Persons Act 1933, s.44: Courts must have regard to the welfare of the child or young person.
- Crime and Disorder Act 1998, s.37: Aim of youth justice system is to prevent offending by children and young persons.
- Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.142A (inserted by Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008): For under-18s, sentencing purposes are:
- Prevention of offending and reoffending.
- Welfare of the offender.
- UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 37: Detention should be used only as a last resort, for the shortest appropriate period.
- Sentencing Council Youth Guidelines (2017): Sentences must reflect seriousness of offence but give weight to age, maturity, and welfare.
1. Prevention of Offending / Reoffending
- Main statutory aim under s.142A CJA 2003 and s.37 CDA 1998.
- Courts design sentences to stop offending early before criminal careers develop.
- Referral orders, Youth Rehabilitation Orders, and reparation orders are used to change behaviour.
Case:
- R v Durham Magistrates Court, ex parte R (2000) – referral order upheld to emphasise prevention and restorative justice.
2. Welfare of the Child
- s.44 CYPA 1933 makes welfare central.
- Sentencing must consider: education, health, family circumstances, maturity, mental illness.
- Custody is last resort.
Case:
- R v Smith (2002) – youth’s immaturity and welfare needs taken into account; community order given instead of custody.
- R v H (2006) – rehabilitation prioritised due to offender’s vulnerability, despite seriousness of offence.
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course
3. Retribution / Punishment
- Punishment is not excluded but is limited compared to adults.
- Custodial sentences (Detention and Training Orders, s.91 grave crime sentences) imposed only where seriousness requires it.
Case:
- R v Ghafoor (2002) – robbery by youth led to custody; seriousness overrode welfare.
4. Rehabilitation / Reform
- Key emphasis: education, training, and treatment.
- Community penalties (YROs, referral orders, drug treatment) tailored to address causes of offending.
- Courts aim to integrate youth back into society.
Case:
- R v H (2006) – rehabilitation more effective than custody for under-16s; order included supervision and treatment.
5. Protection of the Public
- Court must also protect community from violent/persistent young offenders.
- Serious offences (murder, rape, armed robbery) may lead to detention at Her Majesty’s Pleasure or long sentences under s.91 PCC(S)A 2000.
Case:
- R v Venables and Thompson [1998] AC 407 – life sentences for child murderers; illustrates balance between public protection and child welfare.
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course
6. Reparation
- Making amends to victims or society.
- Referral orders include direct/indirect reparation (apology, community work).
- Aims to teach accountability and empathy.
Case:
- R v Clarke (1992) – compensation/reparation preferred over custody for youth theft.
Key Differences Between Adult and Youth Aims
| Adult (s.142 CJA 2003) | Youth (s.142A CJA 2003) |
|---|---|
| Punishment a major aim | Prevention + welfare primary aims |
| Retribution, deterrence significant | Rehabilitation, reintegration prioritised |
| Custody common for serious offences | Custody last resort (UNCRC) |
| Reparation included | Reparation central (referral, reparation orders) |
Evaluation
- Strengths:
- Emphasis on welfare and rehabilitation reduces reoffending.
- Restorative justice empowers victims and reintegrates offenders.
- International human rights obligations (UNCRC) embedded.
- Weaknesses:
- Custody still overused for disadvantaged youths.
- Welfare principle inconsistently applied.
- Public sometimes views rehabilitation focus as too lenient.
- Serious cases (e.g. Venables) highlight tension between punishment and welfare.
Written and Compiled By Sir Hunain Zia, World Record Holder With 154 Total A Grades, 7 Distinctions and 11 World Records For Educate A Change AS Level Law Full Scale Course
Reform Proposals
- Youth Justice Board (2021): expand restorative justice and education-based sentencing.
- Prison Reform Trust: reduce youth custody, improve alternatives like YROs.
- Calls to codify “best interests of the child” more explicitly in domestic law.
Exam Application Strategy
- Quote statutory basis (s.142A CJA 2003, s.44 CYPA 1933, s.37 CDA 1998).
- Apply prevention and welfare aims.
- Consider other aims (rehabilitation, protection, reparation).
- Use case law (Venables, H, Ghafoor, Durham Magistrates).
- Balance seriousness with welfare.
Conclusion
- Aims of sentencing for young offenders differ fundamentally from adults:
- Focus on prevention of reoffending and welfare of the child.
- Rehabilitation and reparation central; custody last resort.
- Statutes (s.142A CJA 2003, s.44 CYPA 1933, s.37 CDA 1998) and cases (Venables, H, Ghafoor) show courts must balance protection of public with child’s best interests.