SENTENCING

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 18 months’ imprisonment was appropriate for an offender who had pleaded guilty to making and possessing indecent photographs of children. An extended sentence was not justified as there was no evidence of dangerousness in relation to contact with children.

When dismissing an appeal against conviction for sexual activity involving children, including rape and trafficking within the UK for sexual exploitation, the court considered the issue of consent. Where a vulnerable or immature individual had allegedly been subjected to grooming for sexual purposes, the question of whether real or proper consent had been given would usually be for the jury to decide, unless the evidence clearly indicated that proper consent had been given.

A total sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment was increased to 20 years where a judge had been wrongly advised that his sentencing powers in relation to offences of buggery committed when the offender was under 18 were limited to 12 months’ imprisonment.

It was appropriate to reduce an extended sentence of 19 years’ imprisonment imposed on a offender following his guilty plea to assault by penetration where he had lain in wait for a victim in a car park late at night and then assaulted a lone female and threatened to kill her. Despite the significant degree of planning, the element of opportunism and lack of sophistication in the offence had to be borne in mind, and in those circumstances an overall extended sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment was appropriate.

Sentences of nine years’ imprisonment were neither unduly lenient nor manifestly excessive for two offenders who had raped an intoxicated young woman in an alleyway outside a nightclub. It had been appropriate not to impose a consecutive sentence for digital anal penetration by one of the offenders.

A total sentence of 22 years’ imprisonment imposed on a hospital doctor for sexual offences against children was not excessive in view of the egregious breach of trust involved. A finding of dangerousness was also justified, notwithstanding that the offences had not involved penetrative sexual activity, because of the far-reaching consequences of the offending and the very significant risk of serious harm posed by the offender.

A sentencing judge had erred in passing sentence for historic offences of indecent assault by referring to a notional sentencing guideline with a starting point midway in the statutory range at the time of the offence rather than adopting the current starting points and the relevant sentencing ranges, subject to the earlier statutory maximum.

Life sentences coupled with minimum terms ranging from 17 to 12 years were appropriate in the case of four men who had been convicted of serious sexual offences following their involvement in one of the worst cases of child exploitation to come before the courts.