In passing sentence for sexual assault, a judge had been entitled to take an adjusted starting point of six years’ imprisonment, as opposed to one of 12 months as recommended in the sentencing guidelines. The offence had been replete with aggravating factors and, save for a guilty plea, devoid of any mitigation. The judge had correctly observed that the guidelines were precisely such: guidelines, not tram lines.
AGGRAVATING FEATURES DANGEROUSNESS EXTENDED SENTENCES JUDGE TAKING STARTING POINT ABOVE THAT RECOMMENDED IN SENTENCING GUIDELINES NUMEROUS AGGRAVATING FACTORS WITH ONLY GUILTY PLEA IN MITIGATION OFFENDER ASSAULTING WOMAN IN TOILET CUBICLE PERSISTENT OFFENDERS SENTENCING SENTENCING GUIDELINES SEXUAL ASSAULT STARTING POINT
Although part of prosecuting counsel’s cross-examination of a rape defendant, related to bad character and based on inadmissible hearsay evidence, had been misjudged and regrettable, it had not affected the overall fairness of the proceedings or the safety of the verdict.
ADMISSIBILITY BAD CHARACTER CAUTIONS CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CROSS-EXAMINATION DETENTION FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION EFFECT ON OVERALL FAIRNESS OF PROCEEDINGS AND SAFETY OF CONVICTION HEARSAY EVIDENCE INTRODUCTION OF INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY EVIDENCE DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF RAPE DEFENDANT RAPE SENTENCING SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH CHILDREN YOUNG OFFENDERS
Sentences totalling 16 months’ imprisonment were unduly lenient, having been imposed following an offender’s guilty pleas to 15 counts of causing or inciting, or attempting to incite, children to engage in sexual activity where the offender had contacted up to 220 children via Facebook. A sentence of four years was appropriate.
CAUSING CHILDREN TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY INDECENT PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHILDREN OFFENDER CONTACTING CHILDREN VIA FACEBOOK AND INCITING SEXUAL ACTS ON CAMERA s.101 s.81 SENTENCING SENTENCING GUIDELINES SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.8 SOCIAL MEDIA UNDUE LENIENCY
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.
“HISTORIC” OFFENCES ABUSE OF POSITION OF TRUST AGE AGGRAVATING FEATURES CHILD SEX OFFENCES CONSIDERATION OF VICTIMS’ WISHES DOUBLE PUNISHMENT ELDERLY MAN GUILTY OF 14 HISTORIC SEXUAL ASSAULTS ON GIRLS GUILTY PLEAS INDECENT ASSAULT MANIPULATION OF MEDIA MITIGATION PUBLIC INTEREST SENTENCING UNDUE LENIENCY VICTIMS
A sentence of three-and-a-half years’ imprisonment imposed following an offender’s conviction for kidnapping a 10-year-old child and inciting her to engage in sexual activity was not unduly lenient given the circumstances, which did not fit within the sentencing guidelines and included a relatively short duration kidnap and the fact that no sexual activity had taken place.
BUT NO ACTUAL CAUSING CHILDREN TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY CHILD ABDUCTION CHILD SEX OFFENCES COMMITTING AN OFFENCE WITH INTENT TO COMMIT A SEXUAL OFFENCE KIDNAPPING NON-APPLICABILITY OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES SENTENCING SENTENCING GUIDELINES SEXUAL ACTIVITY SHORT-DURATION KIDNAPPING OF 10-YEAR-OLD CHILD AND INCITEMENT TO ENGAGE IN UNDUE LENIENCY
A victim surcharge order imposed against the appellant was unlawful as his offences had been committed prior to October 1, 2012, when an order could only be imposed if the defendant was sentenced to a fine, which was not the case with the appellant.
2012 CHANGE OF NAME CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FINES FRAUD NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OFFENCES COMMITTED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1 SENTENCING SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 s.91 UNLAWFUL ORDER UNLAWFUL SENTENCES VICTIMS SURCHARGE
A discretionary life sentence with a minimum term of four years for offences of false imprisonment, committing an offence with intent to commit a sexual offence and sexual assault was manifestly excessive. Such a sentence was to be reserved for the gravest offences and a sentence of detention for public protection with a three-year minimum term was appropriate.
AGGRAVATING FEATURES APPROPRIATE MINIMUM TERM DETENTION FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION DISCRETIONARY LIFE IMPRISONMENT EXTENDED SENTENCES MINIMUM TERM OFFENDING ON LICENCE PUBLIC PROTECTION SENTENCING SERIOUSNESS OF OFFENCE SERIOUSNESS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT ON SCHOOLGIRL SEXUAL ASSAULT STARTING POINT VICTIM PERSONAL STATEMENTS WHETHER DISCRETIONARY LIFE SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE YOUNG OFFENDERS
Where there had been a long delay in bringing a prosecution for indecent assaults, the effect of the delay on the perpetrator’s identification was often best addressed by a short, self-contained direction that focused on the defendant. Although a judge’s direction on the effect of delay on the identification of a Buddhist monk who had sexually assaulted a nine-year old girl in a temple 34 years ago had not been structured in the most appropriate way, it had not amounted to a misdirection and the resulting convictions for indecent assault were safe.
APPROPRIATENESS OF DIRECTION AS TO EFFECT OF DELAY ON IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULES 2005 r.3.2 DELAY DELAY IN BRINGING PROSECUTION FOR INDECENT ASSAULTS IDENTIFICATION INDECENT ASSAULT JURY DIRECTIONS SENTENCE LENGTH SENTENCING WHETHER SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE
A sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment for rape was reduced to 10 and a half years where the sentencing judge had failed to have sufficient regard to the unusual circumstances of the offence, in particular the effect upon the offender and the complainant, his former partner, of the death of their child.
CRIMINAL LAW DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IMPACT OF CHILD’S DEATH MITIGATION RAPE RAPE OF LONG-TERM PARTNER SENTENCING SEXUAL OFFENCES SUFFICIENCY OF REGARD TO UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES
The whole of the term of an extended sentence under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 s.85 constituted the term for which a person was “sentenced to imprisonment” for the purposes of determining the notification period under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.82(1). There was nothing arbitrary or disproportionate about the imposition of an indefinite notification period given the statutory purposes and the existence of review provisions under s.91A to s.91F of the 2003 Act.
art.14 DISCRIMINATION EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 1950 art.8 EXTENDED SENTENCES HUMAN RIGHTS IMPRISONMENT LENGTH OF NOTIFICATION PERIOD BASED ON WHOLE OF EXTENDED SENTENCE MEANING OF “SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT” IN S.82(1) SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS POWERS OF CRIMINAL COURTS (SENTENCING) ACT 2000 s.85 RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE s.40A s.51(2D) s.76 s.76(1) s.80(1) s.82 s.82(1) s.82(2) s.85(2) s.85(6) s.91A s.91F SENTENCING SEXUAL OFFENCES SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT 2003 Pt 2 WHETHER INDEFINITE NOTIFICATION ARBITRARY AND DISPROPORTIONATE
Please use the form below to make contact. Your email will be responded to promptly (we endeavour to respond to all email enquiries within one hour). Alternatively, you can call Stephen's firm, Twelve Tabulae Limited, on +44 (0) 203 846 5801.