CUSTODIAL SENTENCES

The appropriate total sentence for two offences of sexual assault and one of blackmail was an immediate custodial term of three years. When imposing a suspended sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment, the sentencing judge had given too much weight to mitigating factors, including the fact that the offender had Asperger’s Syndrome, and insufficient weight to the seriousness of the blackmail offence. He had also erred in finding that the victim’s apparent consent to sexual activity on one occasion had lessened the seriousness of the subsequent sexual assaults.

An 18-month detention and training order was reduced to 12 months where a 16-year-old offender had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity to four offences of rape of a child under 13. The offender and the 12-year-old victim had been in a relationship since meeting at school and, although the judge had been right to impose a custodial sentence, sufficient allowance had not been made for the available mitigation and the need to keep custody to a minimum for young offenders.

An immediate 15-month custodial sentence imposed on a 68-year-old man in respect of offences of incest and indecent assault which he had committed against his younger sister when aged 15 was replaced with a community penalty. The judge had been misled by not being referred to the relevant guidelines for sentencing youths, and he had not been justified in imposing a far harsher sentence than would have been imposed if the offender had been a 15-year-old boy at the time of sentencing.

A sentence of two years’ immediate imprisonment was quashed and a 36-month community order with a supervision requirement and a Sex Offender Treatment Programme requirement was substituted for four counts of making indecent photographs of a child. According to the sentencing guidelines, where there was sufficient prospect of rehabilitation, a community order with a Sex Offender Treatment Programme requirement could be a proper alternative to a short or moderate custodial sentence.

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 voluntarily sought help for his behaviour.

A judge had been wrong to commit a child for trial in the Crown Court for a sexual offence because, taking into account the child’s previous good character and the fact that he was 11 years old at the time of the offence, there was no real prospect that the Crown Court would exercise its powers under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 s.91 to impose a custodial sentence.

The imposition of a suspended custodial sentence for a basic offence of voyeurism was inappropriate where the offender had pleaded guilty and was a man of good character.

It could not be emphasised too much that where a woman was too ill or too unfit, for whatever reason, to consent to sexual activity she had to be left alone, and the exploitation of her vulnerability would be an aggravating rather than a mitigating feature.

A sentence of two years’ detention was not appropriate in the case of a 14-year-old boy who had committed sexual offences against his eight-year-old cousin; the evidence showed that he did not pose a real risk to others and a custodial sentence would not be in the interests of his welfare. A supervision order for a term of three years was imposed instead.