A 15-Year-Old Robber: Grave Crime, Remand and Fitness
Tia, 15, is charged with robbing a 14-year-old girl of her headphones and with possessing an offensive weapon. Arrested on a Saturday, she was remanded to local authority accommodation with conditions and brought before the youth court on Monday. The local authority says it cannot supervise her properly: her foster placement is thirty miles away and the foster carer will not enforce a curfew. Tia has a diagnosis of ADHD and a full-scale IQ of 68. A previous psychiatric report suggested she may not understand court proceedings. The Crown applies to send her to the Crown Court under the grave crime provisions. Her mother is in court but is a prosecution witness in an unrelated matter. Tia has missed 40% of school this term.
1. Advise on the venue decision and on the relevance of Tia's IQ and ADHD.
Read the worked answer
Venue. A child may be sent for trial under the grave crime provisions (s.51A Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and s.91 PCC(S)A 2000) where the offence is one for which an adult could be sentenced to 14 years or more. Robbery carries a maximum of life, so Tia is eligible. The test is whether the sentence likely to be imposed exceeds the youth court's powers. The youth court can impose a detention and training order of up to 24 months; the Crown Court can impose longer detention under s.91. A street robbery of a child, with a weapon, is serious enough that committal is likely.
IQ and ADHD. They do not determine venue, but they matter in three ways. First, fitness to plead: the Pritchard criteria ask whether she can understand the charge, instruct a representative, follow the evidence and challenge jurors. A full-scale IQ of 68 is not by itself enough, but with the psychiatric report it justifies a further assessment. Second, special measures and intermediary provision at trial. Third, sentencing: her neurodevelopmental difficulties are mitigation and may affect the type of disposal.
Advice. Do not fight committal simply because it feels harsher; it may be the only forum with the sentencing range to avoid a short, destabilising order and with the resources to manage her needs. Instead, use the hearing to secure the reports and to flag fitness and special measures early.
2. What remand outcome should you seek on Monday, and what are the obstacles?
Read the worked answer
Starting point. Remand to local authority accommodation under s.91 LASPO 2012. The court may attach conditions, including a curfew with electronic monitoring (s.93). Tia is a looked-after child, so the local authority is her corporate parent and must provide an appropriate placement.
What to seek. A placement with a foster carer who can supervise, a curfew, a condition of no contact with the complainant, continued education provision and a psychiatric assessment. If the current carer will not enforce a curfew, ask the local authority to identify an alternative placement rather than accepting that custody is the only option.
Obstacles. The court may be persuaded that the criteria for remand to youth detention accommodation under ss.98 to 101 LASPO are met: she is 15, the offence is serious, there is a risk of further offending or of failure to appear, and the local authority says it cannot meet her needs. The 40% school absence and the weak placement will be used to show instability. Expect the Crown to rely on the weapon and the targeting of a younger child.
How to resist. Challenge the adequacy of the local authority's assessment, ask for a written statement of the alternatives considered, propose a specific supervised placement, and emphasise that custody would interrupt education and any mental health support and would expose a vulnerable child to a custodial environment. If detention is ordered, record that it is a last resort and seek a short review date.
3. What special measures, trial protections and reporting orders should you seek?
Read the worked answer
Intermediary and participation. Apply for an intermediary for Tia as a vulnerable defendant. There is no automatic statutory entitlement, but the court has an inherent power to appoint one (R v Cox) and s.33BA YJCEA 1999 provides for live links for vulnerable defendants. Support the application with the psychiatric and psychological material and propose a ground rules hearing covering simple language, breaks, a timetable and how questions will be put.
Fitness to plead. If the assessment raises a real question, the court must determine fitness under s.4 Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964. If she is unfit, the matter proceeds as a trial of the facts under s.4A, which has significant consequences; this should be raised early, not on the day of trial.
Reporting restrictions. In the youth court, s.49 YJCEA 1999 applies automatically. In the Crown Court, apply for a discretionary order under s.45 YJCEA 1999, which can be made where the defendant is under 18 and it is appropriate to avoid an adverse effect on her welfare. The 14-year-old complainant will also have automatic anonymity as a child witness under s.45A.
The mother. She can support Tia, but her role as a witness in another matter creates a potential conflict. Ask the court to consider an alternative appropriate adult or supporter and ensure the local authority provides a representative as corporate parent. Check that Tia's ABE interview and any intermediary assessment are disclosed and that the school and care records are available.