The defendant appealed against his sentence to eight years imprisonment on 8 counts of indecent assault. The offences occurred between 1977 and 1984.
Held: Each of the victims was young and vulnerable and the assaults had had continuing effects on their lives. The aggravating features were: ‘There were four girls or young women involved; one of them was under 16. The offending took place over a period of several years. There was a significant age difference between the appellant and his victims. His offending involved an abuse of a powerful position coupled with deceit. In relation to B there was a clear abuse of trust and grooming. All of the victims were affected by what had happened to them. In relation to some counts there were findings of coercion.’
The judge had erred in his approach to the law of allowing evidence of other possible offence to affect his sentence, but had indicated in his remarks that this would not have mande any significant difference overall. After conviction he had also clowned before a TV camera. However: ‘After consideration of the individual offences and the application of modern sentencing attitudes reflected in the guidelines, but tempered by the need to have regard to the statutory maximum available at the time, an overall sentence of 8 years was justified and correct.’
Treacey LJ, Turner J
[2014] EWCA Crim 2245, 201402543 A7
Bailii, Judiciary
Sexual Offences Act 1956 14(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Uttley, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 30-Jul-2004
In 1995 the defendant was sentenced to twelve years for rapes committed in 1983. He complained that the consequences of the later sentence were adverse because of the 1991 Act. He would now serve three quarters of the sentence rather than two . .
Cited – Hartley, Regina v CACD 12-May-2011
. .
Cited – Regina v Carroll CACD 1995
The maximum sentence for any offence should be reserved for the most serious offences of its kind. . .
Cited – Regina v Canavan, Kidd, Shaw CACD 10-Jul-1997
A sentencing court cannot take into account factors neither admitted by nor proved against the defendant. The cases sought to be allowed for by the Crown were representative but unadmitted counts. It offended a fundamental principle of sentencing . .
Cited – Oakes and Others v Regina CACD 21-Nov-2012
A specially constituted CACD heard sentencing appeals for defendants serving life terms for very grave crimes, and in particular, the judicial assessment of the minimum term to be served by the appellants for the purposes of punishment and . .
Cited – H, Regina v CACD 2-May-2012
(Practice Note) The court considered the principles to be applied when sentencing for offences brought to justice only many years after being committed.
Held: The key to the sentencing exercise is to assess the harm from the offending and the . .
Cited – Regina v BDG CACD 11-Feb-2003
The defendant was convicted of sexual assaults against his step daughter over a period of 7 years. The offences had occurred some 30 years before.
Held: This appeal raises a worrying point of general interest, difficulty and sensitivity in . .
Cited – Regina v Bao CACD 2008
The court considered the use of sentencing guidelines in relation to Article 7 and where the guidelines only came into effect by the time of sentencing. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.538323
