Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Sentencing Regime for 17-year-olds

Tuesday 8 December 2020 · 2 questions

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Answered 0 Partly answered 2 Not answered 0

Key points

  • Minister thanked James Gray for correspondence on sentencing reforms for 17-year-olds.
  • Reforms aim to ensure serious offenders, including 17-year-olds, serve custodial sentences reflecting the severity of their crimes.
  • Government considering a sliding scale and a minimum threshold for sentencing 17-year-olds who commit serious offences.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 James Gray Con
Justice & Courts
Context

No specific background provided, but the issue is about reforming sentencing rules for young offenders.

Question

What plans he has to reform the sentencing regime for 17-year-olds. Young Ellie Gould was brutally murdered in her own home in Calne in my constituency last year. Her assailant, Thomas Griffiths, was given a sentence of 12 and a half years because he was 17. The sentence was further ameliorated by the fact that he did not bring the weapon to the murder scene, but picked up a kitchen knife at the scene. He was 18 when he was convicted and given 12 and a half years.

Answer from Lucy Frazer

I thank my hon. Friend for his correspondence regarding the reforms in the sentencing White Paper. All offenders, including 17-year-olds, who commit the most serious offences and who pose a risk to the public should serve time in custody that reflects the seriousness of their offending. To reduce the gap between the sentencing of older children and younger adults for murder, we plan to replace the blanket starting point of 12 years for murder committed by a child with a sliding scale to reflect age and the severity of the offence.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The specific question about whether 12.5 years is inadequate was not directly addressed, instead focusing on general reforms in sentencing White Paper.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email
Q2 James Gray Con
Justice & Courts
Context

The question is prompted by the brutal murder of Ellie Gould in Calne, North Wiltshire.

Question

Young Ellie Gould was brutally murdered in her own home in Calne in my constituency last year. Her assailant, Thomas Griffiths, was given a sentence of 12 and a half years because he was 17. The sentence was further ameliorated by the fact that he did not bring the weapon to the murder scene, but picked up a kitchen knife at the scene. He was 18 when he was convicted and given 12 and a half years. I very much welcome the fact that the Minister is considering this matter. Does she not agree that 12 and a half years for a crime of that sort committed by a boy aged 17 years and eight months is woefully inadequate? He should have got the 15 to 25 years he would have got had he been an adult.

Answer from Lucy Frazer

I cannot begin to imagine what Ellie Gould's parents must have been through. In addition to the point that I made about introducing a sliding scale to reflect age and severity, I want to make it clear that we are considering a particular minimum threshold for those who are 17. My hon. Friend mentioned the knife already being present at the scene of crime, in the home. He will know that the Sentencing Council has produced guidelines for judges on domestic abuse, which outline that the domestic setting of the offending behaviour makes it more serious.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The specific question about whether 12.5 years is inadequate was not directly addressed; instead focusing on general sentencing reforms and existing guidelines.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email