A 14-year-old girl convicted of assaulting two police officers has had her sentencing delayed for a second time after a pre-sentence report was not completed – despite the court previously apologising for an “administrative oversight” and promising her case would be prioritised.
“I’m not coming to court ever again…. I don’t care” were the final words of the 14-year-old girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons, as she stormed out of the courtroom after being found guilty at trial.
During the full-day trial in August, as we detailed in our report, the court heard that attempts to remove a group of rowdy teenagers from a property had turned violent as the girl had kicked out at a police officer and made a second officer fear for their safety.
The court had ordered a so-called pre-sentence report (or PSR) to be commissioned. These are expert assessments which give the court information about the offender and makes recommendations for rehabilitation.
The girl, and three younger sisters who had been dragged out of school, supervised by the mother, had returned to court three weeks ago to be sentenced. After waiting around for 70 minutes they were called into the courtroom.
Citing variously “some miscommunications” and an “administrative oversight”, we were told that the request for a PSR had not been “allocated to an officer for assessment”.
Addressing the girl directly, Mr Chesterton JP, the chair of the Magistrates’ bench, said:
Apologies, it’s not us that has messed up in the court but we’re all part of the same system.
We have messed up…For that we can only apologise.
We’re really sorry you’re being made to come back to court.
We’re hoping that on the 6th October you can arrive at court, don’t be late, and that everything is ready to go so you should be able to leave quickly
We’re really sorry about this. It shouldn’t have happened. It’s rare, and it’s a real shame it’s happened today.
One saving grace was that the next time the girl appeared to be sentenced she was promised to be treated as a priority:
“Can we also please put a note that this needs to be called on as soon as possible on the 6th. Given what’s happened, and her age, she doesn’t need to be hanging around like this again.”
Unfortunately, this note had not made it to the court as we returned to Stratford Magistrates’ Court for 10am.
The first case heard by the court was called on at 10.37 – a matter that wasn’t even on the list.
A teenage boy, whose alleged sexual offending resulted in bail conditions preventing contact with any female under the age of 18, was seeking to alter the order to allow him to attend school.
We were told that the college had excluded him “in a panic” after carrying out a risk assessment.
District Judge Buttar says she “can’t override a school’s system for risk assessment” but the “court’s intention is to allow him to attend school”.
It was made clear this instruction “doesn’t override the school’s own safeguarding policy”.
Whilst the court proceedings slowly trudge on, the conditions out in the waiting area are tense. There’s a lot of people waiting for this one youth court to tick through its list.
An old-fashioned style TV perches up on the wall, turned off. A solicitor tells me it used to show cartoons – but, now a sea of mobile phones captures people’s attention with the odd burst of music blurting out at full volume.
“You just can’t win in this job”, exclaims one lawyer, despairingly rushing out of the courtroom.
Another asks the list caller how things are progressing in here – “You’re number six; we’re on number 2”. “I’ve only got 50 minutes left on my parking” comes the response.
As the hearings roll past, mainly offences linked to offensive weapons or drugs, one stands out – when the mum and dad of a 16-year-old boy were kicked out of a plea hearing because they were considered prosecution witnesses by virtue of detaining and calling the police on their son themselves!
It is alleged the boy had 13 snap bags of cannabis on him when searched by police. The offence is denied and will come to trial at the start of December this year. A date in 2027 having been rejected by the judge: “we can’t [wait] three months for a trial on a boy this young”.
Despite being called to court for 10am the case I am here to observe finally comes on at 12.51.
Not to be sentenced – but to be adjourned again as for a second time the pre-sentence report has not been carried out.
This time a representative from the Youth Justice Team says the girl has not been attending appointments due to a “decline in her mental health condition”.
It’s difficult to know how much respect a young person will show a system as dysfunctional as this one. One notable point, in my eyes at least, is the lack of continuity at each hearing, with different judges and different lawyers appearing and disappearing.
Although the prosecutor from the trial is on duty today this is not something that has been planned for and is just a coincidence.
“We can’t just keep adjourning this 14-year-old girl with the difficulties she has” insists the judge.
“This case isn’t going to go away” the girl is told as a return date of October 27th 2026 is set.
Third time lucky.
Stratford Youth Court
Courtroom 10
6th October 2026
Before District Judge Talwinder Kaur Buttar
