ABUSE OF POSITION OF TRUST

Total sentences of six years and nine months’ imprisonment and six years’ imprisonment imposed on a male and female offender respectively following guilty pleas to child sex offences were lenient, but not unduly lenient. The female offender had sent the male offender images of her and her daughter, aged between two and six, engaging in sexual activity. The offending had been rightly categorised in Category 2A of the relevant guideline and the judge’s approach to sentencing was not flawed.

A sentence of nine years’ imprisonment, following convictions for three historic offences of sexual assault against a child, was increased to 14 years’ where the offending had been frequent and repeated and where the judge had wrongly constrained himself by the maximum sentence available for a single offence.

A sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment, imposed following convictions for four offences of rape and two offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, was increased to 16 years’ imprisonment with an extended licence period of five years, where the offender was dangerous and had committed the offences while serving a community sentence for a previous sexual offence.

A seven-and-a-half year custodial sentence was appropriate for an offender convicted of historic sexual offences against two young children he had babysat when he was a teenager and young adult. The sentence correctly reflected the relevant factors under the modern sentencing regime without exceeding the maximum sentence available at the time of the offending.

A total sentence of 22 years’ imprisonment imposed on a hospital doctor for sexual offences against children was not excessive in view of the egregious breach of trust involved. A finding of dangerousness was also justified, notwithstanding that the offences had not involved penetrative sexual activity, because of the far-reaching consequences of the offending and the very significant risk of serious harm posed by the offender.

A sentence of two years’ imprisonment imposed on a 44-year-old woman who had pleaded guilty to three offences of sexual activity with a 14-year-old boy was unduly lenient. Although the offences had been out of character, there were several aggravating features, including the disparity in age, the fact that the offender took advantage of the victim’s inebriation, a breach of trust, and a lack of remorse.

A trial judge had correctly ruled that the contents of a conversation revealing details about a rape victim’s previous sexual behaviour were not admissible under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s.41.

A total sentence of four-and-a-half years’ imprisonment imposed on an offender following his conviction for a number of sexual offences committed against his stepdaughter over a five-year period was unduly lenient. The sentence was increased to seven years’ imprisonment.

A sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment imposed for 14 historic indecent assaults was unduly lenient and was increased to one of 30 months. Even though the offender, a highly regarded television and radio presenter with no previous convictions, was 83 years old, in poor health, and had not offended for over 25 years, the original sentence did not reflect the offences’ criminality given their lifelong impact on the victims and public concern over sexual crimes against children and young victims.