SEXUAL ASSAULT

The judge had erred in principle in imposing a sentence of imprisonment for public protection in respect of the appellant’s sexual assault of a child under the girl of 13; repetitive violent or sexual offending at a relatively low level without serious harm did not of itself give rise to a significant risk of serious harm in the future.

A judge had been correct to admit a defendant’s previous convictions as bad character under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.101(1)(d), despite their being over 30 years old, since they had relevant factual similarities to the offence charged and were of sufficient probative force.

The defendant, who had kissed a 20-year-old man with learning difficulties without consent, did not pose a significant risk of serious harm; therefore a term of imprisonment for public protection was inappropriate.

A judge had not erred in law in rejecting an offender’s submission of no case to answer to four counts of rape and two counts of sexual assault, all of a child aged under 13, in circumstances where, despite inconsistencies in the victim’s evidence, through the victim’s various accounts the judge had a clear basis on which to form his conclusion that, applying the principles established in R. v Galbraith (George Charles) [1981] 1 W.L.R. 1039, it was for the jury and not for him to assess the victim’s credibility.

A judge had correctly imposed a sentence of imprisonment for public protection upon an offender who had committed a series of sexual assaults against several girls under the age of 13. However, given the non-penetrative nature of the offences, a minimum term of six years was too long and was replaced with a minimum of four years.

A minimum term of three years’ imprisonment for public protection imposed on an offender who had pleaded guilty to 17 counts comprising offences of indecent assault together with the taking and making of indecent photographs of children was not manifestly excessive where the offences had involved the planned, premeditated targeting of young children and a grave breach of trust over a prolonged period.

A judge had been wrong to undertake a trial of an issue concerning a defendant’s alleged conduct prior to an offence that had neither been admitted nor proved by verdict and further erred in using his findings against that defendant to form the basis of an assessment of dangerousness under the Criminal Justice Act 2003. However, in the circumstances, the judge was correct to impose imprisonment for public protection.

A judge was wrong to assess a defendant as posing a significant risk of causing serious harm to the public where the evidence did not support the requirement that the harm would result in death or serious personal injury.

A finding that a defendant did not pose a risk of serious harm to the public within the meaning of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.229 did not preclude the court from imposing a sexual offences prevention order under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.104 on that defendant.