'Edlington boys' minimum terms not to be referred as Unduly Lenient

16 February 2010

The Attorney General, Baroness Scotland QC, has decided not to refer the sentences imposed on two boys, now aged 11 and 12, for an attack on two others to the Court of Appeal.

The two had earlier pleaded guilty to two counts of grievous bodily harm along with lesser offences committed last year in Edlington, near Doncaster. They were given indeterminate sentences of detention for public protection with minimum terms of five years. The question the Attorney General considered was whether these terms - the earliest time the offenders can apply to be released - were possibly unduly lenient and should be reviewed.

Explaining her decision today, Baroness Scotland said:

"This case was truly shocking, not least because of the very young age of the offenders who carried out a prolonged and sadistic attack on two young boys. The sentencing judge called it torture and gave them indeterminate detention for public protection with minimum terms of five years. He had to take into account their age and that the effect of a long period in custody would be very different from that on an adult, or even an older teenager.

"I was asked to see if this sentence was possibly unduly lenient - which anybody can ask me to do for certain serious crimes. If I believe the Court of Appeal should examine a sentence I won't hesitate to ask.

"Cases of such serious offending by very young offenders are thankfully rare. In this case the judge approached the sentencing exercise with care and, after looking at all the factors involved, I do not consider the terms to be unduly lenient.

"I do want to emphasise an important point made by the judge, which is that five years is the very least these boys will serve. Both of these sentences will prevent the offenders' release from custody unless and until the Parole Board decides that the risk that they pose to the public is acceptable. Release is by no means automatic.

"If the offenders are ever released, they will remain on licence. This means that they will be supervised by the Probation Service and will have conditions imposed on them, for example in relation to where they can live and work. While on licence they may be recalled to prison to continue serving their sentences if they commit further offences or their behaviour makes this necessary in order to protect the public. These facts are often overlooked when indeterminate sentences are passed."

The Attorney also studied the assessment of the offenders made by the judge, who acknowledged that an indeterminate sentence was a 'last resort' and she added:

"The judge stated that the offenders would be sentenced on the basis they had not intended to kill the boys, but this was prolonged sadistic violence, for no reason other than that they got a kick out of hurting and humiliating them. He concluded that everything known about them suggested that there was a very high risk of them committing really violent offences causing their victims serious harm, unless their problems were properly addressed with the help of professionals. The judge noted that although young offenders could change and develop in a much shorter time than adults, it would have to be left to the professionals to determine when it would be safe to release them.

"The judge was clearly correct to impose indeterminate sentences of detention and I agree with his analysis and with the minimum terms he set."

Ends

For media enquiries please contact:
The Attorney General's Press Office on 020 7271 2484/2465/2440
Or email: susan.givens@attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk

Notes to editors:

  1. Please note that reporting restrictions remain in place on this case.
  2. Press reporting ruling: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/ruling-on-anonymity-edlington.pdf
  3. The two boys were sentenced on 22 January 2010 by Mr Justice Keith at Sheffield Crown Court for a number of offences, the most serious of which were two counts of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. They were both sentenced to detention for public protection with minimum terms of 5 years.
  4. The sentencing remarks are available at: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/edlington-two.pdf
  5. An indeterminate sentence of detention for public protection is available for under-18s under section 226 Criminal Justice Act 2003, if they have been convicted of a serious specified offence and the court concludes that they present a risk of serious harm to the public and should be detained until they no longer pose such a risk.
  6. Concurrent sentences of detention were imposed in respect of two counts of robbery (18 months' detention) and two counts of causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity (24 months' detention). No separate penalty was imposed in respect of an earlier assault occasioning actual bodily harm on a third boy.
  7. The Attorney General is the Chief Legal Advisor to the Government, and has responsibility for superintending the prosecuting authorities in England, Wales and (until devolution) Northern Ireland.
  8. The number of possible ULS cases considered by the Attorney General varies from year to year but is in the range of 250 - 400. ULS figures for 2008 show that in that year, 80% of the 71 sentences referred by the Law Officers and considered by the Court of Appeal were deemed unduly lenient and 73 % of offenders - 52 - had their sentences increased.