GUILTY PLEAS

Where an offender had distributed an indecent photograph of a girl under the age of 18 contrary to the Protection of Children Act 1978 s.1(1)(b), but it was unclear if the girl was under 16, a notification requirement should not have been imposed on him. He had not been convicted of an offence listed within the Sexual Offences Act 2003 Sch.3, which was necessary to impose a notification requirement. There was a clear discrepancy between those provisions, and the court would have to be alive to that discrepancy when discharging its duty under the Criminal Procedure Rules and, if necessary, decide whether a child’s exact age could be resolved.

A sentence of seven years and two months’ imprisonment following late guilty pleas to three counts of rape was increased to 10 years where the sentencing judge had taken a starting point that had been too low and had given too great a discount for the offender’s pleas and previous good character.

Where an offender made indecent images of children at a variety of levels of seriousness, a sentence was to be imposed on the most serious category of counts, taking into account the totality of the offending and having regard to aggravating and mitigating factors, before credit was given for any guilty pleas. Concurrent sentences were then to be imposed on the remaining counts.

It was not arguable that either a total sentence of 29 years’ custody with an extended licence period of six years imposed on a former rock band singer for various sexual offences against children and young persons, or a total sentence of 17 years’ imprisonment imposed on a woman who had allowed the singer to sexually assault her 12-month-old baby daughter, were manifestly excessive.

An offender seeking to challenge his conviction for indecent assault on the ground that his actions had been the result of hypoglycaemia caused by his type 1 diabetes could not admit fresh expert evidence where it failed to deal the question at issue, namely, whether he had only recalled the assaults during his police interview because his solicitors had taken him through the disclosure document beforehand.

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.

Evidence which was sought to be admitted under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.101(1)(d) as evidence of propensity was not inadmissible simply because the behaviour it evidenced post-dated the offences being tried.

Given a defendant’s early guilty plea to 10 counts of indecent assault committed against his step-children, a total sentence of 13 years’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive and a total sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment was substituted.

Where a judge had given a direction to the jury that it was not to convict the defendant only on the basis of his similar previous conviction and, looking at the matter overall, the judge had properly admitted evidence of the previous conviction under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.101(1)(g).