ABUSE OF POSITION OF TRUST

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 abused themselves, but such abuse could not excuse a child victim turning adult predator. The sentence of four-and-a-half years’ imprisonment was unduly lenient.

A total sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment imposed on an offender for rape, sexual assault and causing a child to watch a sexual act was unduly lenient, and was replaced with a sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment. The offender, a foster carer, had abused a vulnerable child in his care repeatedly over a two-year period.

A notional determinate sentence that equated to 30 years’ imprisonment before a one-third reduction for guilty pleas, which had formed the basis for calculating the specified minimum term of a life sentence imposed for 28 counts relating to the sexual abuse of five boys, was excessive and reduced to 20 years.

A sentence of six years’ imprisonment imposed on an offender who had been found guilty on two counts of rape against his ex-wife was unduly lenient having regard to the grave breach of trust involved in the attacks and the offender’s enjoyment of his ex-wife’s discomfort at trial, and was increased to a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.

A sentence of six years’ imprisonment imposed following a guilty plea to an offence of assault on a child by penetration was manifestly excessive as, despite the abuse of a position of trust, the penetration had been minimal and there had been no physical harm caused to the two-year-old victim.

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.

A minimum term of three years’ imprisonment for public protection imposed on an offender who had pleaded guilty to 17 counts comprising offences of indecent assault together with the taking and making of indecent photographs of children was not manifestly excessive where the offences had involved the planned, premeditated targeting of young children and a grave breach of trust over a prolonged period.

A sentence of five years and six months’ imprisonment imposed on a taxi driver who had followed a drunken passenger into her own home and had unprotected sexual intercourse with her whilst she was asleep on the sofa was found to be unduly lenient and increased to eight years.

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.