SEXUAL OFFENCES

It could not be emphasised too much that where a woman was too ill or too unfit, for whatever reason, to consent to sexual activity she had to be left alone, and the exploitation of her vulnerability would be an aggravating rather than a mitigating feature.

A total sentence of seven years’ imprisonment with an extended licence period of two years imposed on an offender following his pleas of guilty to three counts of sexual assault was manifestly excessive and was reduced to six years’ imprisonment; further, the extended licence period was not warranted.

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 total sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment imposed on an offender for rape, sexual assault and causing a child to watch a sexual act was unduly lenient, and was replaced with a sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment. The offender, a foster carer, had abused a vulnerable child in his care repeatedly over a two-year period.

The erroneous admission of disputed bad character evidence by a trial judge had resulted in the trial of collateral issues which significantly contributed to the lengthening of a trial such that it had been very difficult for the jury to maintain focus. Accordingly, the conviction for rape, sexual assault, false imprisonment, threatening to kill and poisoning was unsafe.

A sentence of six years’ imprisonment imposed on an offender who had been found guilty on two counts of rape against his ex-wife was unduly lenient having regard to the grave breach of trust involved in the attacks and the offender’s enjoyment of his ex-wife’s discomfort at trial, and was increased to a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.

A community order with a requirement to attend a sex offender’s programme and attend probation appointments for three years imposed on a 72-year-old offender who had pleaded guilty to six offences of indecent assault on females under 13, which had taken place up to 40 years previously, was not unduly lenient and a non-custodial sentence was in the proper range of sentences available to the judge who had exercised extreme caution in assessing the circumstances of the case.

Once a judge had decided that a defendant should be treated as being of good character, the judge was required as a matter of law to give the full good character direction and there was no room for a jury to disagree as to the propriety of using the defendant’s good character in his favour.

Convictions on charges of rape and living on prostitution brought under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 were quashed where the indictment had alleged that the offences had occurred between dates straddling the entry into force of the Act, and there was no evidence to show under which statutory regime the offences had fallen.