s.6

A district judge had failed to appreciate when deciding to retain jurisdiction to prosecute a young offender in the youth court for child sex offences that an amendment to the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 s.3B introduced by the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 s.53 was not in force when he made his decision.

A suspended sentence of two years’ imprisonment was increased by lifting the suspended element and imposing an immediate two-year custodial sentence, for an offender who had pleaded guilty to ten counts of historic sexual abuse. The court noted that this was an exceptional case, in which the offender had volunteered the fact of a second victim, and said it should not be treated as a precedent.

Where the failure by police to conduct an effective investigation into allegations of rape had been held to amount to breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the ECHR art.3, the victims of the rapes were entitled to a financial remedy for harm caused by the police failings on top of sums received in civil claims for the harm caused by the rapes. The court examined the statutory framework, relevant legal principles, previous authorities, and the existence of alternative remedies, and awarded sums of £22,250 and £19,000 respectively.

A conviction for sexual assault was quashed in circumstances where it was not clear that the jury would have reached the same verdict had it been aware of fresh evidence, admitted on appeal, that the offender suffered from Asperger’s syndrome.

An Asylum and Immigration Tribunal had made material errors of law in holding that exceptional circumstances were required before deportation could be ordered for a failed asylum seeker who had pleaded guilty to two sexual offences and had been sentenced to a two-year conditional discharge with a recommendation for deportation.

A judge had been entitled to recommend the deportation of an offender despite a failure to provide notice as required by the Immigration Act 1971 s.6(2), since the offender and his counsel had been aware of the issue and had made submissions at the relevant time.

On a charge of buggery with a male under the age of 16 pursuant to the Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.12 , an appellant was entitled to plead in defence that he honestly believed the complainant to be over the age of 16. The s.12 offence was not a strict liability offence.

It was impermissible for the Crown to prosecute a charge of indecent assault under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.14(1) in circumstances where the conduct upon which that charge was based was only an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl aged under 16 in respect of which no prosecution could be commenced under s.6(1) of the Act by virtue of s.37(2) of, and Sch.2 to, that Act.