Fourteen year old spared custody for knife assault in school
A 14 year old boy who took a knife to school when he intended to engage in a fight and who caused a serious cheek injury to another pupil, has had a sentence of detention quashed by the Criminal Appeal Court.
Lords Menzies and Turnbull allowed an appeal by the boy, IG, against 12 months' detention in cumulo (reduced from 15 months for an early plea) for (1) having the knife with him; (2) assaulting LG, aged 14, by repeated punching on the head and body to injury; and (3) assaulting RM, also aged 14, by punching and struggling with him whereby he was struck with the knife to his severe injury and permanent disfigurement.
The sentencing sheriff at Livingston had been told of ongoing issues between IG and a group of boys at the school, IG having been assaulted the previous month and video of the incident having been posted on social media. IG and LG had arranged to meet for a fight. IG said he had taken the knife to threaten any others in the group who might intervene. The assault on LG then took place in the school canteen. After the boys were separated RM approached IG and asked why he was hitting LG. The two then began to fight, during which RM was struck with the knife, requiring five stitches in his cheek, leaving a scar that was still clearly visible nine months later.
Children's panel and social work advice was for support rather than punishment, with a remit to the children's hearing, but the sheriff, while describing the case as "sad and anxious", regarded the offence as too serious: the charge did not state that the knife injury was intentional, but IG had deliberately taken a knife to school in the knowledge that he was to be engaged in a fight and in order to threaten others.
Lord Turnbull, giving the opinion of the court, said that while the sheriff had been fully aware of the circumstances, he had not given due consideration to the background of bullying. It was also important, and distinguished the case from some others, that the social work report stated that IG had shown a level of insight into his offending, and its impact on his victim and his own family, and was working with the criminal and youth justice team to address some of the issues that had contributed to his behaviour. There was no background of abuse or trauma and he had a good family environment.
He continued: "We recognise the legitimacy of the sheriff’s concerns as set out in his report and which were canvassed with counsel appearing on the appellant’s behalf. But we accept and agree that he has failed to adequately balance these concerns against the positive elements contained within the social enquiry report to which we have drawn attention."
However, given the seriousness and the consequences of IG's conduct, "we do not think it is appropriate to remit the case to the children’s panel. The court would wish to keep control of the disposal of the case and to be in a position to revisit that if necessary". The court therefore imposed a community payback order with a supervision requirement for 18 months.