SENTENCING

There was no need for the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to contain express wording to enable a person who was subject to a sexual offences prevention order to be required to wear an electronic monitoring device or tag when he was away from his residence. The interference with the person’s rights under the ECHR art.8 was in accordance with the law.

A sentence of imprisonment for public protection, which had been unlawfully imposed following an offender’s guilty pleas to two offences of indecent assault committed before the Criminal Justice Act 2003 Pt 12 s.225 came into force, was quashed and replaced by an extended sentence.

A non-custodial sentence was unduly lenient for a young offender of previous good character who had pleaded guilty to sexual offences involving a girl under 13: a custodial sentence of two and a half years was substituted.

A trial for three specimen offences of sexual activity with a child had been fair, even though the complainant’s cross-examination was cut short due to her extreme distress. The defendant’s principal defence had been put to her, and there was other evidence upon which the jury could rely. The resulting sentence of nine years’ imprisonment was appropriate given that the defendant had committed numerous similar offences against the complainant while the sentencing guidelines were aimed at a single offence.

When an offender was sentenced for historic sexual offences, he was not to be sentenced on any count to more than the maximum term available at the time of the offending. That said, sentencing had to reflect modern attitudes, and the court could take account of modern sentencing guidelines.

An individual had been incorrectly convicted of a historic offence of rape against a family member because, at the relevant time, anal penetration did not constitute that offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.1. It was appropriate to substitute an alternative conviction for indecent assault, as the facts fell within the scope of s.14(1) of the 1956 Act, and the test set out in R. v Graham (Hemamali Krishna) [1997] 1 Cr. App. R. 302 was satisfied.

A sentencing judge had no jurisdiction to vary a sentence once the time period in the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 s.155 had expired. The case of R. v Saville (Peter Davies) [1981] Q.B. 12 provided no authority to the contrary.

Not guilty verdicts returned by a jury in respect of two of five counts of historic indecent assault did not demonstrate that the judge’s refusal to stay the prosecution on the ground of abuse of process due to delay and the consequent loss of evidence was mistaken, or that the verdicts were illogical or in any other way unsafe.

A sentence of two years’ imprisonment imposed on a 44-year-old woman who had pleaded guilty to three offences of sexual activity with a 14-year-old boy was unduly lenient. Although the offences had been out of character, there were several aggravating features, including the disparity in age, the fact that the offender took advantage of the victim’s inebriation, a breach of trust, and a lack of remorse.