UNDUE LENIENCY

The appropriate total sentence for two offences of sexual assault and one of blackmail was an immediate custodial term of three years. When imposing a suspended sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment, the sentencing judge had given too much weight to mitigating factors, including the fact that the offender had Asperger’s Syndrome, and insufficient weight to the seriousness of the blackmail offence. He had also erred in finding that the victim’s apparent consent to sexual activity on one occasion had lessened the seriousness of the subsequent sexual assaults.

A sentence of five months’ imprisonment which had been imposed on a father following his conviction for sexually assaulting his two-year-old son was unduly lenient. The offence merited a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment together with the imposition of a sexual offences prevention order.

As the Attorney General had a statutory responsibility to personally consider whether sentences should be referred to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient, it was inimical to the public interest for judges, when exercising their discretion as to the provision of a transcript of a sentence hearing, to restrict or limit the provision of such information on such a request from the Attorney General.

Total sentences of six years and nine months’ imprisonment and six years’ imprisonment imposed on a male and female offender respectively following guilty pleas to child sex offences were lenient, but not unduly lenient. The female offender had sent the male offender images of her and her daughter, aged between two and six, engaging in sexual activity. The offending had been rightly categorised in Category 2A of the relevant guideline and the judge’s approach to sentencing was not flawed.

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.

A sentence of three-and-a-half years’ imprisonment imposed on an offender for historic offences of buggery and indecent assault on a fellow resident at a children’s home was unduly lenient. The offender satisfied the dangerousness criteria and a sentence of five years and ten months’ imprisonment with a three-year extension period was appropriate.

A term of two years imprisonment suspended for two years imposed for seven counts of sexual assault of a child over 13, which occurred 20-25 times over a five-month period on an eight-year-old girl was unduly lenient. Although the judge had given reasons for departing significantly from the relevant sentencing guidelines by reference to the offender’s “childlike mentality” and vulnerability, that did not justify such a departure and the appropriate sentence was one of three years’ imprisonment.

A sentence of four months’ imprisonment for assault by penetration by an individual against his partner of 23 years was unduly lenient; offences committed in the domestic context were no less serious than those committed in a non-domestic context. The sentence was quashed and was replaced by one of 21 months’ imprisonment suspended for 24 months.

A judge had not erred when sentencing an offender to life imprisonment, with a minimum term of 10 years, as a sentence of “last resort” for extreme child sex offences committed over a number of years against his own children. The sentence was also not unduly lenient, despite the minimum term not being increased when the offender was sentenced for further offences which involved the same children being offered to other men for sexual purposes.