UNDUE LENIENCY

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.

A non-custodial sentence was unduly lenient for a young offender of previous good character who had pleaded guilty to sexual offences involving a girl under 13: a custodial sentence of two and a half years was substituted.

A sentence of two years’ imprisonment imposed on a 44-year-old woman who had pleaded guilty to three offences of sexual activity with a 14-year-old boy was unduly lenient. Although the offences had been out of character, there were several aggravating features, including the disparity in age, the fact that the offender took advantage of the victim’s inebriation, a breach of trust, and a lack of remorse.

A sentence of four years’ imprisonment imposed after trial for indecent assault was unduly lenient where the offender, who was akin to a stepfather to a seven-year-old child, had committed sexual acts against her, forcing her to perform oral sex on him. A sentence of seven years’ imprisonment was substituted.

A suspended sentence for seven offences of indecent assault on step-siblings of a very young age, carried out over a protracted period some 20 years earlier, had not been unduly lenient. The interruption to the offender’s treatment programme that an immediate custodial sentence would cause, and the potential resulting exacerbation of the situation, amounted to an exceptional circumstance justifying the suspended sentence under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 s.118.

A three-year community order imposed on an offender for multiple offences of inciting a child to engage in sexual activity was replaced with a term of three years’ imprisonment. The manipulative nature, frequency and persistence of the offending, targeting vulnerable victims including two under 13, required an immediate custodial sentence even though the offender had voluntarily sought help for his behaviour.

In response to concerns that the principle of double jeopardy was no longer referred to in judgments of the Court of Appeal in references made by the Attorney General, the court expressed its view that, although the double jeopardy principle remained for consideration in the kind of case identified in Attorney General’s Reference (Nos 14 and 15 of 2006) [2006] EWCA Crim 1335, the practice had evolved so that no reference was made to it, save in the rare category of case in which it was likely to arise.

On the first occasion that the Court of Appeal considered the application of the revised Sexual Offences Definitive Guideline, effective from 1 April 2014, to offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.30, it considered how to approach a case of multiple offending.

A total sentence of four-and-a-half years’ imprisonment imposed on an offender following his conviction for a number of sexual offences committed against his stepdaughter over a five-year period was unduly lenient. The sentence was increased to seven years’ imprisonment.