A 14-year-old girl’s journey through the youth court has come to an end after multiple problems obtaining pre-sentence reports caused her sentencing to be adjourned several times.
“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 for sentencing 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 on 6th October 2026. The sentencing 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.
“We can’t just keep adjourning this 14-year-old girl with the difficulties she has” insisted District Judge Talwinder Kaur Buttar.
However, this is precisely what happened when the matter returned on 27th October 2026.
This time, the youth justice team requested another week to prepare the report due to the “unavoidable illness” of the report writer.
This was bad news to the 14-year-old girl who promptly stormed out of the court, followed by mum.
The hearing was adjourned in their absence with bench chair Mr Bell JP stating: “We need some input from the youth service [in order to sentence], the court very much expects a report is completed…by whatever means that report should be completed by next week”.
That background sets the scene for this overcast Tuesday morning.
We now have the same prosecutor as the trial, and two members of the bench who sat with Mr Chesterton JP have returned, with one now chairing proceedings.
All notes about this case taking priority have seemingly evaporated – despite being listed for 10am it’s 11.48 by the time we get underway.
Good news – not only had a report had been completed but the report author was also in court.
The girl’s lawyer, Mr Tyson, made passionate submissions about the “young vulnerable child” sat to his right.
Were his client to get a “Youth Rehabilitation Order for these matters this would have a lasting effect on her record, and she may struggle in terms of jobs etcetera”. Instead, Mr Tyson invited the court to grant a conditional discharge, which would be deemed spent much quicker.
The PSR author spoke about the “interventions and support” that could still be offered by the local authority, which included mental health support and allocation of an exploitation officer.
An issue with this proposal was raised by Ms Ajayi, representing the Crown, who submitted that if the girl refused to engage with the support then “there is no way to bring her back to court”.
Ms Ajayi cited comments made by PC Moyler in her statement. She had said that “unfortunately, I have been assaulted numerous times on duty recently” something that was “happening more and more frequently. Every time this happens I must return home and tell my loved ones. They try and convince me to try another career.”
PC Moyler explained that normally defendants only received “a small fine” and as a result her “confidence in the criminal justice system diminishes every time” as she felt assaults were not being taken seriously. Every assault makes “me doubt my role in front line policing” she concluded.
Mr Tyson submitted that this statement was “generic” and didn’t relate to his client. We were also told there was a history of domestic violence in the family against the mother which may have explained the girl’s reaction when someone loomed over her just before the assault.
With private discussions between the magistrates taking some 40 minutes it was just into what should have been their lunch break when the decision was announced.
Having “listened carefully to all that has been said with this case” Mrs Boyce JP said the bench considered that these were “serious offences”. It had been decided that “for the wellbeing of the defendant we’re imposing a Youth Rehabilitation Order since it is the best way to ensure she will benefit from the provisions provided”.
The girl was told she must complete 12 hours of activities with the first appointment occurring this week with the speech and language therapist.
The girl was warned that “if you break any of the requirement while your order is going on you’ll be brought back to court and dealt with in another way”.
Hopefully, this is the last time she will ever need to experience the justice system.
Stratford Youth Court
Courtroom 10
3rd November 2026
Before Mrs Boyce JP, Mr Dean JP, Mrs Goodman JP
