Top Rape Defence Barrister

The jury directions given at the trial of a well-known publicist for historical sexual offences had not been inadequate or unfair, and his conviction for indecent assault was safe.

Certain conditions of a sexual harm prevention order imposed on an offender who had committed sexual offences against children, which restricted his use of computers, mobile phones with internet access and remote storage, were quashed as they were disproportionate, unenforceable and did not give effect to the statutory purpose.

A three-year community order imposed on an offender for multiple offences of inciting a child to engage in sexual activity was replaced with a term of three years’ imprisonment. The manipulative nature, frequency and persistence of the offending, targeting vulnerable victims including two under 13, required an immediate custodial sentence even though the offender had […]

A sentence of eight years’ imprisonment was the very minimum that the court could impose following a plea of guilty to the rape of a young boy, which had been committed in breach of trust and against a background of repeated and regular sexual abuse. The court would be sympathetic to those who had been […]

The court set out guidance on factors to be considered when making sexual offences prevention orders alongside other sentences and in respect of computer and internet use, personal contact with children and occupations or activities which were likely to bring the defendant into contact with children.

The aim of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.15(1) was to penalise those who used a relationship which they had developed as a platform from which to launch sexual offending. In the instant case, there was more than a substantial body of evidence corroborating the complainant child’s version of events which justified the jury reaching […]

Sentences of four and two years’ imprisonment were appropriate in the case of a husband and wife who had involved two 14-year-old girls in sexual activity.

In an attempted sexual grooming case where the offender was caught by a newspaper sting operation and there was no actual victim, a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment on a guilty plea was appropriate for a man of previous good character who had been subjected to the humiliation of exposure in the national press.