A total extended sentence of seven years and six months’ imprisonment for historic offences of attempted buggery, indecency with a child and indecent assault on a man committed by an individual aged 20-25 against his neighbour aged 10-14, whilst lenient, was not unduly so. Although aspects of the judge’s reasoning had been flawed, the offences had very unpleasant features and there had been an element of grooming, no violence had been used.
AGGRAVATING FEATURES ASSAULT OF CHILD UNDER 13 BY PENETRATION ATTEMPTS BUGGERY CRIMINAL LAW HISTORICAL OFFENCES MAXIMUM SENTENCES RAPE OF CHILD UNDER 13 SENTENCING SENTENCING GUIDELINES STARTING POINT TOTALITY OF SENTENCE UNDUE LENIENCY
A total sentence of 13 years and two months’ imprisonment imposed following a trial of a step-father for four historic sexual offences against his step-daughter was manifestly excessive where the judge had both ordered all sentences to run consecutively, as well as imposing sentences at the higher end of the scale. It was replaced with a sentence of 11 years and two months’ imprisonment.
CHILD SEX OFFENCES CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES HISTORICAL OFFENCES INDECENT ASSAULT SENTENCE LENGTH SENTENCING STARTING POINT TOTALITY OF SENTENCE
Sentences of six years’ imprisonment following a conviction for attempted rape and 30 months’ imprisonment, to be served concurrently, following a conviction for sexual assault, were not unduly lenient where the judge had taken into account totality, but had been motivated by mercy.
ATTEMPTS PREROGATIVE OF MERCY RAPE SENTENCING SEXUAL ASSAULT STARTING POINT TOTALITY OF SENTENCE UNDUE LENIENCY
A sentence of six years’ imprisonment following convictions for historic charges of rape, indecency with a child and sexual assault, committed against a 13-year-old girl, was increased to 12 years’ imprisonment where the judge had departed from the sentencing guidelines without giving reasons for doing so and where the sentence imposed failed to reflect the totality of the offending.
“HISTORIC” OFFENCES AGGRAVATING FEATURES INDECENCY INDECENT ASSAULT OFFENCES AGAINST CHILDREN RAPE REASONS SENTENCING SENTENCING GUIDELINES STARTING POINT TOTALITY OF SENTENCE UNDUE LENIENCY
A sentence of 17 years and 2 months’ imprisonment with an eight-year extension period imposed for child sex offences was justified as the offender had carried out the systemic and sustained abuse of his step-daughter from age 6 to 11 and of her cousin, who suffered from autism, at age 12.
AGGRAVATING FEATURES CAUSING CHILDREN TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY CAUSING CHILDREN TO WATCH SEXUAL ACTS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY OFFENCES CHILD SEX OFFENCES EXTENDED SENTENCES POSSESSION OF PROHIBITED IMAGES OF CHILDREN RAPE OF CHILD UNDER 13 SENTENCING SEXUAL ASSAULT OF CHILD UNDER 13 STARTING POINT STEPFATHER ABUSING CHILDREN UNDER 12 OVER NUMBER OF YEARS
The creation of indecent pseudo images of children, by superimposing photographs of a child’s head onto photographs of naked adults in indecent poses, constituted possession, and not production, of indecent photographs of children within the sentencing guidelines. Production offences did not include those where pseudo images were made using images taken from other sources. A sentence of two years’ imprisonment imposed on an offender of previous good character was reduced to a five-month suspended sentence with a requirement to attend a sexual offences treatment programme.
CRIMINAL LAW INDECENT PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHILDREN MITIGATION OUTRAGING PUBLIC DECENCY POSSESSION PRODUCTION SENTENCING SENTENCING GUIDELINES STARTING POINT VOYEURISM
A sentence of seven years and two months’ imprisonment following late guilty pleas to three counts of rape was increased to 10 years where the sentencing judge had taken a starting point that had been too low and had given too great a discount for the offender’s pleas and previous good character.
In passing sentence for sexual assault, a judge had been entitled to take an adjusted starting point of six years’ imprisonment, as opposed to one of 12 months as recommended in the sentencing guidelines. The offence had been replete with aggravating factors and, save for a guilty plea, devoid of any mitigation. The judge had correctly observed that the guidelines were precisely such: guidelines, not tram lines.
AGGRAVATING FEATURES DANGEROUSNESS EXTENDED SENTENCES JUDGE TAKING STARTING POINT ABOVE THAT RECOMMENDED IN SENTENCING GUIDELINES NUMEROUS AGGRAVATING FACTORS WITH ONLY GUILTY PLEA IN MITIGATION OFFENDER ASSAULTING WOMAN IN TOILET CUBICLE PERSISTENT OFFENDERS SENTENCING SENTENCING GUIDELINES SEXUAL ASSAULT STARTING POINT
A discretionary life sentence with a minimum term of four years for offences of false imprisonment, committing an offence with intent to commit a sexual offence and sexual assault was manifestly excessive. Such a sentence was to be reserved for the gravest offences and a sentence of detention for public protection with a three-year minimum term was appropriate.
AGGRAVATING FEATURES APPROPRIATE MINIMUM TERM DETENTION FOR PUBLIC PROTECTION DISCRETIONARY LIFE IMPRISONMENT EXTENDED SENTENCES MINIMUM TERM OFFENDING ON LICENCE PUBLIC PROTECTION SENTENCING SERIOUSNESS OF OFFENCE SERIOUSNESS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT ON SCHOOLGIRL SEXUAL ASSAULT STARTING POINT VICTIM PERSONAL STATEMENTS WHETHER DISCRETIONARY LIFE SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE YOUNG OFFENDERS
A jury had not acted inconsistently in finding two young offenders guilty of oral rape but not guilty of sexual assault, even though the charges represented a sequence of events over the course of a 30-minute period and the central issue was consent. On the evidence, there was no logical inconsistency in the verdicts.
ACQUITTAL ON OTHER CHARGES OF ORAL RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT ARISING OUT OF 30-MINUTE INCIDENT CONSENT CONVICTION ON ONE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE INCONSISTENT VERDICTS NORTHERN IRELAND RAPE SENTENCING STARTING POINT WHETHER VERDICTS LOGICALLY INCONSISTENT YOUNG OFFENDERS
Please use the form below to make contact. Your email will be responded to promptly (we endeavour to respond to all email enquiries within one hour). Alternatively, you can call Stephen's firm, Twelve Tabulae Limited, on +44 (0) 203 846 5801.