Katie Walden: Continued Success in Youth Justice and Young Defendant Representation

Katie Walden is building a strong track record representing young defendants. Her background—both legal and non-legal—equips her with the empathy, communication skills, and clarity needed to engage effectively with young clients, many of whom are navigating the criminal justice system for the first time. Katie is able to build trust quickly, explain complex legal issues in accessible terms, and provide grounded, reassuring advocacy at every stage of proceedings.

1. In February, she represented TT. TT was a 16 year old who was made subject to a Youth Rehabilitation Order (YRO) imposed in the Youth Court for numerous offences of robbery, possession of a bladed article, aggravated vehicle taking, theft, and possession of drugs, when he was 15 years old.

He was then charged with subsequent armed robbery and possession of a bladed article in a public place offences. When on bail for those offences, he committed a further armed robbery.

The case involved the defendant being 15 at the time of commission of some offences, 16 years old for others, and being 16 years old on the date of sentence.

In her submissions, Katie addressed the option for a YRO with Intensive Supervision and Surveillance, revoking and resentencing on the previous YRO matters, Detention and Training Orders, and a sentence of custody under s.250 of the Sentencing Act 2020. She also directed the Court to the Youth Guidelines for robbery and for possession of a bladed article, alongside the adult guidelines. Particular reference was made to the alternatives to imposing the mandatory minimum sentence for a second offence of possessing a bladed article, purposes of Youth Sentencing, the Sentencing Council Guidelines for Sentencing Children and Young People, and the case of R v ZA [2023] EWCA Crim 596.

The Court considered a finding of dangerousness, but was persuaded that, given TT’s young age, it was not necessary to make such a finding.

2. In March, she represented JH at PTPH. JH was 18 at the time of PTPH and sentence. He was 15 when he committed the offence of violent disorder. In her submissions on sentence, she referred to the fact that JH would have likely received a Referral Order if he had been sentenced soon after the commission of the offence. Again, she referred to the Sentencing Council Guidelines and relevant case law. She drew attention to the Court of Appeal’s guidance that greater consideration should be given to a young defendant’s specific role in a joint enterprise or group offence than would typically be afforded to an adult. The Court found favour with the defence submissions and imposed a Community Order.

3. In August, she represented HM for sentence. HM had been 17 at the time he was involved in a conspiracy to supply heroin and cocaine. He was 19 when he entered his guilty plea, and 21 on the date of sentence.

The Crown placed the defendant’s role as being leading culpability, harm category 2 on the guidelines. She argued that there was a lesser role factor present, that the defendant was young, and that he was better place within significant culpability when balancing all the factors. Her submissions were described as “well-founded” by the Court. The defendant was sentenced to 45 months custody (3.75 years), when the starting point for offending of this type is one of 8 years custody.