R v VGT & Ors

This is an application by His Majesty's Solicitor General for leave to refer three sentences as unduly lenient pursuant to section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

On 22 December 2025, after a four-week trial before Bright J and a jury, three teenagers were found guilty of the following offences: XGV was convicted of the murder of Ibrahima Seck. VGT and WGU were convicted of manslaughter. On 27 February 2026 XGV was sentenced to detention at His Majesty's Pleasure, pursuant to section 259 of the Sentencing Act 2020, with a minimum term of 11 years and 42 days. VGT was sentenced to 2 years 10 months' detention and WGU to 2 years 4 months' detention, both under section 250 of the Sentencing Act.

The three offenders XGV, VGT and WGU were aged 14, 17 and 15 respectively at the time of sentence. There were reporting restrictions in place which is why this Reference has been listed using randomly-generated ciphers. The sentencing judge was invited to, but refused, to make an excepting direction for any of the young offenders at the time of sentence.

There were no representations from the Press at the outset of this hearing. We are satisfied to the extent that we need to be, in accordance with the principles outlined by this Court in R v RKL [2021] EWCA Crim 200, that the balancing exercise between open justice and the welfare of the child offenders falls in favour of the continuation of restrictions. To the extent that we need to therefore, we confirm the continued existence of the reporting restrictions already in place. We will use the ciphers in the published form of this judgment, although we and counsel at this hearing have used the offenders' first names to refer to them during the hearing, as we will in this judgment though, as we say, the reported version will use the ciphers. As the offenders are all under 18, we sat on this Reference without wigs or gowns and notified counsel in advance, who have done the same. For the avoidance of any doubt the order in respect of each offender is in these terms:

We take the facts from the Reference, noting that where there were disagreements between the Law Officers and the respondent offenders about the facts, the Reference refers to the trial judge's sentencing remarks "on the basis that there can be no sensible dispute about his factual findings."

The deceased, Ibrahima Seck, was aged 14 when XGV stabbed and killed him. WGU and Ibrahima had been childhood friends. They played together. WGU would often go to Ibrahima's house to see him. But by 2025 they had drifted apart. There is disagreement between the Law Officers and the offenders as to whether WGU bullied Ibrahima thereafter, as to which the learned judge said this:

On the afternoon of Sunday 8 June 2025 Ibrahima left his home address with his older twin brothers and two friends. The five of them made their way to the park to play football. The three offenders were in the area at the time. VGT and WGU were on a scooter, XGV was on a bicycle. The judge recorded in his sentencing remarks what happened:

The judge recorded what Ibrahima did, and how he died:

The offenders made their way to XGV's home. His mother was there. She drove the three offenders to the home address of a close friend, once there the offenders showered and changed their clothes. WGU disputed that he showered and changed his clothes, as to which the learned judge said this:

WGU left and went home. VGT and XGV waited a while before going to the police station to hand themselves in. WGU was later arrested at his home address. In interview the three offenders answered "no comment" to all questions.

The judge was satisfied from the evidence he heard at trial that (i) the knife belonged to XGV, (ii) that XGV had given his knife to VGT when they set off earlier that afternoon and (iii) XGV had done that because he was subject at the time to a police caution for possessing a knife and would be in "big trouble" if the police found him in possession of another one. The learned judge was also satisfied that WGU had not known of the presence of the knife until VGT produced it and handed it to XGV.

Ibrahima was 14 years old when XGV stabbed and killed him. His older twin brothers were with Ibrahima that day and witnessed what happened. We have read the moving victim personal statements from his heartbroken mother and father. They describe how the actions of the offenders have shattered their family. Nothing this Court says can undo the events of that day or bring Ibrahima back to them. No sentence could possibly be an adequate reflection of the value of Ibrahima's life.

Sentencing child offenders for serious offences, particularly offences which have resulted in someone's death and which have such dreadful lifelong consequences for the families and friends of the victims is always difficult. The law requires the court to consider the welfare and rehabilitation of the child offenders in arriving at sentence. Inevitably, as here, there are long and detailed reports on each of the offenders to be read and gone through. In doing that, in focusing on the offenders as the law requires, it can seem as if the victim and their family have been overlooked - forgotten even. But that is not so. Throughout our consideration of this Reference, we remain acutely conscious of why we are here. We remember that the person at the heart of this case is 14-year-old Ibrahima Seck and that his family have lost him. Last Monday was the anniversary of his death.

On 8 June 2025 when Ibrahima was killed XGV was aged 14 years and 2 months, VGT was aged 16 years and 8 months and WGU was 14 years and 3 months. XGV had no previous convictions but in December 2024 (some 6 months previously) he had received a police caution for being in possession of a knife in a public place. Neither VGT nor WGU had any previous convictions, cautions, warnings or reprimands recorded against them.

The judge presided over the 4-week trial and was able to observe the offenders throughout. One of them (VGT) gave evidence, allowing the judge to see and hear his account of what took place. In terms of further information about each offender for the purposes of sentence the judge had the following additional material:

The judge turned to XGV first. He said he would sentence him on the basis that it was his knife and that he had gone out that afternoon with the knife intending to have it at his disposal in case he needed it. Applying the starting points for minimum terms for murder enacted by Parliament at paragraph 5A of Schedule 21, this gave a starting point of 13 years. As to aggravating and mitigating factors, the judge said that he could not be sure XGV had used the knife intending to kill Ibrahima. However, he had clearly found it "exciting and enjoyable" to have and use the knife. He had chased after the others and would have stabbed them too had he caught up with them. The offence was in public and XGV had a caution for carrying a knife at the time. He had disposed of his phone and his clothes but that was of limited effect since he had turned himself into the police later that day and admitted having been there. The judge noted that XGV had been, and still was, very young. Dr Hamilton's report detailed significant cognitive limitations and ADHD.

The pre-sentence report referred to difficulties XGV had experienced growing up, including episodes of domestic violence and abuse in the home. The youth team worker was of the view that the remorse XGV had expressed was genuine and the judge accepted that. XGV had shown progress whilst on remand which the judge took into account. He observed that all of the features justified "a significant reduction" in the sentence.

Turning to VGT, the judge noted that he was older than the other two but he had not been the ringleader - in fact the opposite. He had been led by the others. VGT was the only offender who had given evidence and the only explanation he could give for being with WGU and XGV was that it was "exciting". He had never seen XGV with a knife before and did not know he would use it to injure anyone. The judge said that he had to reconcile this with the jury's verdict of guilty to manslaughter, accepting the submissions of VGT's counsel that it was consistent with an expectation that XGV would merely threaten the others with the knife and make them feel apprehensive of violence. The judge said that he was "certainly persuaded" that VGT did not expect XGV to stab Ibrahima as he lay defenceless on the ground. It was notable, the judge said, that VGT "never… threatened any of [the other group] or looked as if you had any intention of harming anyone". The judge declined to follow the prosecution's invitation to place the offence in category B culpability of the Adult Guideline, instead deciding that"... in the circumstances in which you found yourself, it was not obvious to you that [XGV] would use the knife and stab someone.", placing the offence in category C.

The pre-sentence report for VGT was "favourable and positive", the author noting that he had expressed genuine regret and remorse. His likelihood of re-offending was assessed as low. The author of the pre-sentence report suggested a 36-month Youth Referral Order in VGT's case. The judge noted that, like XGV, WGU was still only 14. He had had a more significant role in the background to the incident but his involvement on the day was "relatively limited". There was no evidence that WGU had known about the knife. The judge assessed his culpability, as with Riley, to fall into category C of the Adult Guideline.

WGU's background had been unsettled, moving with his family from Nigeria when he was 10, being in a home where there was domestic abuse. The pre-sentence report had also identified factors leading to a Conclusive Grounds Decision - WGU had been the victim of child criminal exploitation. The risk of re-offending in his case, unlike VGT, was assessed as high.

The judge then proceeded to pass the sentences which we have already noted. In XGV's case he deducted from the minimum term the number of days which he had already spent on remand.