Where an offender had been convicted of historic sexual offences in respect of his step-daughter, who was five or six years’ old at the time of the abuse, the appropriate sentence was a term of five years’ imprisonment. The key to the sentencing exercise in such cases was to assess the harm from the offending […]
A sentence of 14 months’ imprisonment was excessive for an offence of voyeurism and was substituted by a sentence of nine months’ imprisonment, where the appellant, the manager of a gym, had abused his position of trust by secretly recording videotape of women showering or using sun beds.
The appellant’s convictions for indecent assaults against young girls over 30 years ago were safe. His sentence would be reduced from seven years to four and a half years as these were not the most serious offences of their kind.
