R v HBF

R v HBF

The sentence of 3 years 6 months' detention was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness, planning, and repeated nature of the offences, the vulnerability of the victims, and the applicant's risk to the public. The sentencing judge properly applied the relevant guidelines, gave an appropriate discount for youth and developmental difficulties, and considered but rejected non-custodial alternatives. Custody was inevitable and justified.

Parties
Applicant: HBF; Respondent: Rex
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Sentencing of Children, Sexual Offences, Robbery, Possession of Bladed Articles, Appeals Against Sentence
Criminal Law Youth Justice Sentencing of Children Sexual Offences Robbery Possession of Bladed Articles Appeals Against Sentence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HBF

Applicant

Rex

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed on a 13-year-old for sexual assault, attempted robbery, and possession of bladed articles was manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge properly applied the Sentencing Children and Young People Guideline

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence of 3 years 6 months' detention was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness, planning, and repeated nature of the offences, the vulnerability of the victims, and the applicant's risk to the public. The sentencing judge properly applied the relevant guidelines, gave an appropriate discount for youth and developmental difficulties, and considered but rejected non-custodial alternatives. Custody was inevitable and justified.

Court Disposition

leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • No publication of information likely to identify the applicant until age 18 under Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s.45
  • No publication of information likely to identify the victims of sexual offences under Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992