SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH CHILD FAMILY MEMBERS

Where the cross-examination of a complainant under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 s.41(1) to show that her allegations of sexual abuse against an individual were false, and therefore that her allegations against the defendant were likely to be false, meant that the jury would have been told about the individual’s limited admissions to the allegations, there was no real prospect that the jury would infer that the allegations were false, and an application under s.41(1) was refused.

A sentence of nine months’ imprisonment suspended for two years with a two year residence requirement imposed on an offender following his pleas of guilty to four counts of sexual activity with a child family member was unduly lenient but was not altered as there were sufficient exceptional circumstances.

Although a sentence of four years’ detention in a young offender institution imposed for sexual assault of a child under 13 and of causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity was severe, it was not manifestly excessive.

A sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum term of 35 years where a 21-year-old uncle had raped and strangled his two-year-old niece was not excessive. The sentencing judge had taken account of the defendant’s age and guilty plea in deciding not to impose a whole life order, and so those features could not be factored into calculation of the minimum term because it would have provided the defendant with a second discount.

A judge had erred in her belief that the maximum sentence available for indecent assault was 10 years’ imprisonment and had subsequently imposed an unduly lenient extended sentence.