UNDUE LENIENCY

Sentences of nine and six years’ detention for two young offenders convicted of rape and, in one case, grievous bodily harm were unduly lenient where the female victim, who was just 16, had been subjected to a group sex attack and had caustic soda thrown over her. The sentences were increased to 14 and 9 years’ detention.

A sentence of nine months’ imprisonment suspended for two years with a two year residence requirement imposed on an offender following his pleas of guilty to four counts of sexual activity with a child family member was unduly lenient but was not altered as there were sufficient exceptional circumstances.

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.

A sentence of a three-year supervision order imposed on a 17-year-old for offences of sexual assault on a child under 13 and causing a child to engage in sexual activity was not unduly lenient, as the long-term need for public protection required appropriate intervention that would not be provided by the imposition of a detention and training order.

Sentences of four years’ imprisonment for sexual offences against a mentally disordered person were unduly lenient given the repeated nature of the offences. A total sentence of five and a half years was substituted which included a substantial discount for an unsatisfactory sentencing process.

A judge had erred in her belief that the maximum sentence available for indecent assault was 10 years’ imprisonment and had subsequently imposed an unduly lenient extended sentence.

A sentence of imprisonment for public protection with a minimum term of two years and six months was appropriate in the case of a 23-year-old man who had pleaded guilty to two offences of raping a child under the age of 13, one offence of meeting a child following sexual grooming, one offence of sexual activity with a child, and 10 offences of making an indecent photograph of a child.

A community sentence was not unduly lenient where the offender had pleaded of guilty to an offence of assault by penetration contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.2(1) on the basis that he was mistaken as to the identity of the victim, believing her to be somebody else, who would have consented to his advances.