SENTENCE LENGTH

A judge had not erred in adopting a 30-year starting point for the minimum term when sentencing a young offender to detention for life following his conviction for the murder of a 16-year-old girl, on the basis that the murder involved sexual or sadistic conduct and fell within the Criminal Justice Act 2003 Sch.21 para.5(2)(e), notwithstanding the offender’s limited intellectual ability and profound psychological and emotional difficulties.

The decision of R. v Smith (Nicholas) [2011] UKSC 37, [2011] 1 W.L.R. 1795 did not undermine the long-established practice that the assessment of dangerousness involved addressing the question whether or not an offender would be dangerous when he would otherwise be released from a determinate sentence; it underlined the principle that the decision whether to make an order of imprisonment for public protection could only be made at the date of the sentencing hearing.

In a trial involving aggravated burglary and sexual offences a judge had fairly summed up the evidence and the convictions could not be said to be unsafe. However, the total sentence of 16 years was manifestly excessive and was reduced to 12 years’ imprisonment.

A sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years on condition that the offender take part in a sex offender treatment programme and carry out community work, was appropriate in the case of a 22-year-old man who had pleaded guilty to offences of viewing child pornography on the internet and one chatline offence of inciting a girl aged 13 to engage in sexual activity.

An extended sentence of 12 years, comprising a custodial term of nine years and an extension period of three years, was appropriate in the case of an offender who had committed a sustained and violent rape of another male.

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.

A sentence of two years’ imprisonment following a guilty plea to three counts of sexual activity with a child was manifestly excessive given that the child was almost 16 at the time and the age disparity between the child and the offender was relatively small. A sentence of 30 weeks’ imprisonment was substituted for the original term.

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.

Taking into account the exceptional circumstances, a sentence of 30 months’ detention imposed upon a 17-year-old offender for rape of a child under 13 was excessive where the offender had had consensual sexual intercourse with a 12-year-old girl, believing her to be nearly 15 years of age. The appropriate sentence was a 12 month detention and training order.