CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES

A judge had had insufficient regard to totality when imposing consecutive extended sentences totalling 38 years on a prolific sex offender who had pleaded guilty to committing 137 offences over the course of 10 years. A large number of the offences involved the deliberate targeting of vulnerable children on the internet, persuading them to provide him with naked images of themselves and blackmailing them to provide increasingly graphic and humiliating images of them taking part in degrading acts. An extended sentence of 25 years’ custody, with an extension period of eight years, was substituted for the original sentence.

It was a technical error to impose a single global extension period when sentencing for two or more offences by means of consecutive extended sentences. Simplicity was achieved by imposing one single extended sentence on one of the offences, and setting its terms having regard to all the other features of the case.

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.

An extended sentence of 39 years, with a custodial term of 33 years, imposed in respect of a very large number of serious sexual offences against young girls was manifestly excessive; the appropriate custodial term was 30 years. The judge had also erred in adding up the consecutive sentences to reach the overall custodial term before imposing an extension period on the total: it was the overall extended determinate sentences that had to be consecutive, not just the custodial terms.

A sentencing judge had been entitled to refuse to adjust a sentence for newly discovered offences of indecency with a child by reference to what the overall sentence would have been had all the circumstances been known during an earlier sentencing exercise for similar offences where the offender had chosen not to disclose the extent of his offending.

A total sentence of five years’ imprisonment imposed for two sexual assaults was manifestly excessive and was reduced to three years. The judge had been entitled to find that the aggravating features moved the offences out of the third category in the definitive guideline for sexual assault, but he had erred in passing a sentence on one count which was at the starting point of the first category.

A total extended sentence of 11 years and four months, comprising eight years and four months’ custody and a three-year extension period, imposed for four counts of indecency with a child and 10 counts of indecent assault on a female, was manifestly excessive as there was no justification for an extension period and it was undesirable to have terms of imprisonment consecutive with an extended sentence. The extension period was removed.

A sentence in excess of the statutory maximum of ten years should not have been imposed where it resulted in an extended sentence of 18 years, of which 12 years was the custodial term for sex offences against children. A term of ten years, of which six years was the period of imprisonment and four years was the extended licence period, was imposed instead.

The Court of Appeal gave guidelines for imposing extended periods of licence under s.85 Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.