2.3.2 Young Offenders – Types of Sentence

Statutory Framework

• Youth justice is governed by:
  • Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (PCC(S)A 2000)
  • Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003)
  • Crime and Disorder Act 1998
  • Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO)
• Sentencing principles:
  • s.44 Children and Young Persons Act 1933: welfare of child is a primary consideration.
  • s.37 Crime and Disorder Act 1998: aim of youth justice system is to prevent offending by children and young persons.
  • UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 37): detention only as last resort, for shortest possible time.

1. Custodial Sentences

Detention and Training Order (DTO)

• Statutory basis: ss.100–107 PCC(S)A 2000.
• For offenders aged 12–17.
• Minimum 4 months, maximum 24 months.
• Sentence split: half in custody, half under supervision in community.

Case:

• R v Ghafoor (2002) – Court of Appeal stressed DTOs must reflect seriousness, but rehabilitation should remain central.

Longer Detention for Serious Crimes

• s.91 PCC(S)A 2000: For grave crimes (e.g. manslaughter, rape, robbery) where maximum sentence exceeds 14 years for adults.
• Court may impose custodial sentence up to adult maximum.

Case:

• R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Venables and Thompson [1998] AC 407 – life sentences for two 10-year-olds (James Bulger case). HoL held tariff setting by Home Secretary breached separation of powers. Highlighted special treatment of youths in serious cases.

Detention at Her Majesty’s Pleasure (mandatory life for murder)

• For offenders under 18 convicted of murder.
• Criminal Justice Act 2003, Sch.21: tariff set by judge, not politicians.
• Sentence is indeterminate until safe to release.

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

2. Community Sentences

Referral Orders

• Crime and Disorder Act 1998, ss.16–33.
• Used for first-time offenders pleading guilty.
• Youth Offender Panel works with offender, family, and victim to agree contract for rehabilitation and reparation.

Case:

• R v Durham Magistrates Court, ex parte R (2000) – confirmed referral orders appropriate for first-time minor offending to emphasise restorative justice.

Youth Rehabilitation Order (YRO)

• Introduced by LASPO 2012, replacing multiple community orders.
• Flexible “menu” of requirements:
  • Curfew, unpaid work, drug/alcohol treatment, supervision, education requirements.
• Available for offenders aged 10–17.

Case:

• R v H (2006) – youth given rehabilitation order with intensive supervision; court stressed rehabilitation more effective than custody for under-16s.

Reparation Orders

• s.73 PCC(S)A 2000.
• Offender makes direct/indirect reparation to victim or community.
• Aims to build accountability and reintegration.

Attendance Centre Orders

• Offenders aged under 25, including youths.
• Must attend centre for 12–36 hours.
• Sessions include discipline, training, and rehabilitation.

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. Parental Responsibility

Parenting Orders

• Crime and Disorder Act 1998, ss.8–15.
• Court may require parents to attend counselling, training, or ensure child attends school/rehabilitation.
• Recognises role of parental supervision in preventing reoffending.

Case:

• R v Hill (2002) – court stressed effectiveness of involving parents to correct youth behaviour.

Fines Against Parents

• s.55 PCC(S)A 2000: court may order parents to pay fine or compensation if youth cannot pay.
• Promotes accountability but criticised for unfair burden on families in poverty.

Bind-Over Orders

• Parents may be “bound over” to control child’s behaviour, with financial penalty if breached.

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

Evaluation

• Strengths:
  • Focus on welfare and rehabilitation reflects youth vulnerability.
  • Wide range of community options avoids unnecessary custody.
  • Parenting orders emphasise family responsibility.
  • Referral and reparation orders encourage restorative justice.
• Weaknesses:
  • Custody still used disproportionately for disadvantaged youths.
  • Parental orders criticised for punishing parents rather than children.
  • DTOs sometimes too short to allow meaningful rehabilitation.
  • Serious cases (e.g. Venables & Thompson) show tension between punishment and welfare.

Reform Proposals

• Youth Justice Board (2020): expand restorative justice schemes.
• Prison Reform Trust: reduce use of custodial detention; expand education-based YRO requirements.
• Calls for clearer support for families instead of punitive parental fines.

Exam Application Strategy

1. Identify offender age (10–17) and seriousness of offence.
2. Apply custodial options (DTO, s.91, HMP).
3. Apply community alternatives (YRO, referral, reparation, attendance centre).
4. Consider parental responsibility orders.
5. Reference statutes (PCC(S)A 2000, LASPO 2012, Crime and Disorder Act 1998) and cases (Venables, Durham, H).

Conclusion

• Young offenders can receive custodial sentences (DTO, s.91 detention, HMP for murder), community sentences (YRO, referral, reparation, attendance), or parental responsibility measures (parenting orders, fines).
• Statutory framework balances rehabilitation and welfare with public protection and deterrence.
• Cases (Venables, Ghafoor, Durham Magistrates, H) illustrate flexibility and controversy in youth sentencing.