UNDUE LENIENCY

The purpose of the legislation making it a crime punishable with imprisonment to have sexual relations with those under 16 years was to protect those under 16. A reduction of punishment on the basis that the victim encouraged the commission of the offence was wrong. The victim’s vulnerability was an aggravating rather than a mitigating feature.

Sentences totalling 16 months’ imprisonment were unduly lenient, having been imposed following an offender’s guilty pleas to 15 counts of causing or inciting, or attempting to incite, children to engage in sexual activity where the offender had contacted up to 220 children via Facebook. A sentence of four years was appropriate.

A sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment imposed for 14 historic indecent assaults was unduly lenient and was increased to one of 30 months. Even though the offender, a highly regarded television and radio presenter with no previous convictions, was 83 years old, in poor health, and had not offended for over 25 years, the original sentence did not reflect the offences’ criminality given their lifelong impact on the victims and public concern over sexual crimes against children and young victims.

A sentence of three-and-a-half years’ imprisonment imposed following an offender’s conviction for kidnapping a 10-year-old child and inciting her to engage in sexual activity was not unduly lenient given the circumstances, which did not fit within the sentencing guidelines and included a relatively short duration kidnap and the fact that no sexual activity had taken place.

A sentence of detention for public protection with a minimum term of four years imposed on an offender for attempted rape and assault by penetration was unduly lenient and a minimum term of six years was substituted.

A sentence of eight years’ imprisonment was the very minimum that the court could impose following a plea of guilty to the rape of a young boy, which had been committed in breach of trust and against a background of repeated and regular sexual abuse. The court would be sympathetic to those who had been abused themselves, but such abuse could not excuse a child victim turning adult predator. The sentence of four-and-a-half years’ imprisonment was unduly lenient.

A sentence of three-and-a-half years’ imprisonment was appropriate in the case of a 69-year-old man who had pleaded guilty to causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity and to sexual assault of a child under 13 after he had groomed and sexually assaulted a seven-year-old girl.

A sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years on condition that the offender take part in a sex offender treatment programme and carry out community work, was appropriate in the case of a 22-year-old man who had pleaded guilty to offences of viewing child pornography on the internet and one chatline offence of inciting a girl aged 13 to engage in sexual activity.

A sentence of one year’s imprisonment suspended for two years with a two-year supervision requirement imposed on an offender for five counts of sexual assault was unduly lenient and was increased to 15 months’ imprisonment. There had been no justification for departing from the Sexual Offences Act 2003 Definitive Guideline and the judge had erred in not giving reasons for doing so.