UK high court denies review for juvenile murderers sentenced as adults

Pursuant to United Kingdom law, minors convicted of murder are eligible for a mid-sentence review, unless they were sentenced as adults.(CN) — The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom on Tuesday rejected an appeal from a convicted murderer who argued he should have been entitled to a review of his life sentence since he committed the killing when he was a minor.In a 55-page ruling, the high court found Jesse Quaye — who was 17 when he murdered Connor Barrett in a coastal village in Norfolk, England, in 2014 — was lawfully denied that review since he turned 18 by the time he was sentenced for the crime.Meanwhile, a second boy who was convicted for Barrett’s murder alongside Quaye, Ayomindy Bile, is entitled to a mid-sentence review since he was only 15 at the time of his sentencing.The underlying case stems from a dispute at a 21st birthday party in 2014, where a 21-year-old Barrett had volunteered to provide music. Quaye and Bile showed up uninvited to attack one of the partygoers, Ricky Halliday, “who they thought had given them some offense some days or weeks prior to the party,” according to the court.“They both attacked him, punching him in the face on a number of occasions, and inflicting bodily harm on him,” the court wrote. “No weapons were produced during that assault. Mr. Halliday spoke to the victim, Mr. Barrett, who asked them why they had attacked Mr. Halliday. A fight started between Mr. Bile and the victim. Mr. Quaye went to assist. Both Mr. Quaye and Mr. Bile surrounded the victim, and he was stabbed four times, dying of his wounds.”The trial of Quaye and Bile revealed they had come to the party armed with knives, and that Halliday died in front of his family. The killers were sentenced to life in prison with a minimum term of 15 years.Longstanding U.K. law establishes that a minor who is sentenced to murder can ask for a reconsideration of their minimum term once they’ve served half of it on the basis of age and maturation. But recent moves from Parliament threatened that precedent, at least in Quaye’s case.In 2022, Parliament voted to restrict the right to seek this review for juvenile murderers who were sentenced after they had turned 18, stonewalling the now-29-year-old Quaye’s bid for a second look at his sentencing. Quaye likened this treatment to age discrimination and argued it was an affront to the European Convention on Human Rights.But the Supreme Court disagreed.“Drawing a bright line distinction based on being 18 at the date of conviction or sentence is a recognized feature of sentencing and the criminal justice system,” the court ruled. “In almost all cases, the type of custodial sentence which may be imposed on a young person depends on their age at the time of conviction.”Rejecting arguments from Quaye’s legal team that the 2022 rule change was arbitrary and capricious, the court found it was rather “the rational approach.”“Differentiating by reference to age at the date of sentence is likewise rational: the minimum term is set at the date of sentence, and accordingly, if there is to be differentiation as to the availability of a review of that minimum term on the grounds of age, then age at the date of sentence is the obviously relevant age,” the court added.The court noted the purpose of the mid-sentence review is to account for maturation and development of someone sentenced early in life. That doesn’t apply to Quaye or anyone sentenced after they turn 18, the court ruled.“It was permissible for Parliament to proceed on the basis that the underlying purpose of a minimum term review does not apply with the same force to those aged 18 or over (adults) who do not continue to go through the same accelerated process of development as children do,” it found.Justices Ben Stephens and Ingrid Simpler penned Tuesday’s ruling with Justices Philip Sales, Michael Briggs and Nicholas Hamblen concurring.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads