R v KEVIN IVERSON (2019)

A total extended sentence of seven years and six months’ imprisonment for historic offences of attempted buggery, indecency with a child and indecent assault on a man committed by an individual aged 20-25 against his neighbour aged 10-14, whilst lenient, was not unduly so. Although aspects of the judge’s reasoning had been flawed, the offences […]

Read More

R v MICHAEL McGARRY (2018)

A total sentence of 13 years and two months’ imprisonment imposed following a trial of a step-father for four historic sexual offences against his step-daughter was manifestly excessive where the judge had both ordered all sentences to run consecutively, as well as imposing sentences at the higher end of the scale. It was replaced with […]

Read More

R v W (A) (2015)

A sentence of 17 years and 2 months’ imprisonment with an eight-year extension period imposed for child sex offences was justified as the offender had carried out the systemic and sustained abuse of his step-daughter from age 6 to 11 and of her cousin, who suffered from autism, at age 12.

Read More

R v PETER VICTOR NORVAL (2015)

The creation of indecent pseudo images of children, by superimposing photographs of a child’s head onto photographs of naked adults in indecent poses, constituted possession, and not production, of indecent photographs of children within the sentencing guidelines. Production offences did not include those where pseudo images were made using images taken from other sources. A […]

Read More

R v ROBERT JAMES HOBBS (2013)

In passing sentence for sexual assault, a judge had been entitled to take an adjusted starting point of six years’ imprisonment, as opposed to one of 12 months as recommended in the sentencing guidelines. The offence had been replete with aggravating factors and, save for a guilty plea, devoid of any mitigation. The judge had […]

Read More

R v ALAN ANDREW PARKER (2013)

A discretionary life sentence with a minimum term of four years for offences of false imprisonment, committing an offence with intent to commit a sexual offence and sexual assault was manifestly excessive. Such a sentence was to be reserved for the gravest offences and a sentence of detention for public protection with a three-year minimum […]

Read More

R v (1) A (2) B (2012)

A jury had not acted inconsistently in finding two young offenders guilty of oral rape but not guilty of sexual assault, even though the charges represented a sequence of events over the course of a 30-minute period and the central issue was consent. On the evidence, there was no logical inconsistency in the verdicts.

Read More