Enhancing Sentencing Principles in Historic Sexual Offences: Dickinson v. R. ([2021] EWCA Crim 1191)

Introduction

The case of Dickinson v. R. ([2021] EWCA Crim 1191) was adjudicated by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) on August 2, 2021. The appellant, John Dickinson, aged 67 at the time of sentencing, faced multiple charges encompassing historic sexual offences committed between 1974 and 1977, as well as a more recent firearms offence related to the possession of a stun gun. Having served a substantial period in custody for unrelated offences, including a life sentence for murder and arson, Dickinson sought to appeal against the totality of his sentences, challenging both the individual components and the cumulative nature of the imposed terms.

Central to the appeal were issues surrounding the statutory surcharge under section 161A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the application of sentencing guidelines to historic offences, and the principle of totality in ensuring that cumulative sentences do not result in manifest excessiveness, especially in light of lengthy prior custodial terms.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal and conducted a thorough examination of the sentencing imposed by HHJ Cooper. The original sentencing encompassed multiple charges of indecent assault, indelicacy with a child, and firearms offences, culminating in a total determinate sentence of 18 years imprisonment with additional extended licence periods, amounting to an overall custodial term of 22 years.

The appellant contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to high individual components, inappropriate consecutive sentencing, failure to account for time already served, incorrect assessment of dangerousness, and the undue imposition of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order. The Court upheld some grievances, particularly recognizing the necessity to adjust the sentence to account for the extensive time Dickinson had already spent in custody. Consequently, the final sentence was reduced, quashing the sentence on Count 8 and allowing concurrent terms, resulting in a total custodial sentence of 15 years with extended licence periods of 3 years.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment referenced several key precedents that shaped the Court's reasoning:

• R v Abbott and Others [2020] EWCA Crim 516:

This case addressed the complexities in calculating victim surcharge for historical offences. The Court of Appeal in Dickinson emphasized the necessity to reference the earliest offence when determining surcharge amounts, particularly for offences predating the current surcharge orders.

• R v Green [2019] EWCA Crim 196:

Green dealt with the totality principle, especially in scenarios where extensive time had been served between the commission of offences and sentencing. The Dickinson judgment adopted an approach consistent with Green, advocating for adjustments in sentencing to prevent manifestly excessive cumulative terms.

• R v Forbes [2016] 2 Cr App R (S) 44:

Forbes addressed the application of sentencing guidelines to historical offences, underscoring the court's obligation to align sentences with current sentencing practices while being constrained by the maximum sentences available at the time of offence commission.

Legal Reasoning

The Court meticulously analyzed the interplay between historical offences and contemporary sentencing guidelines. Recognizing that the offences predated the current maximum sentences, the court adhered to Forbes by ensuring that sentencing reflected present-day gravity while respecting statutory limits from the time of offence.

Additionally, the court applied the principle of totality, derived from Green, to avoid disproportionately lengthy sentences when considering time already served. The appellant's lengthy custodial history, spanning over three decades, necessitated a recalibration of the total sentence to prevent manifest excessiveness.

In assessing the statutory surcharge under section 161A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the court acknowledged that the historical sexual offences predated the surcharge's enactment. Hence, it rectified the previous sentence by removing the surcharge, aligning with the Clarifications provided in R v Abbott.

Impact

The Dickinson judgment holds significant implications for future cases involving historic offences. It reinforces the necessity for courts to balance the gravity of past offences with the temporal context of sentencing laws and the defendant's custodial history. By adhering to precedents like Green and Forbes, the court ensures that sentences remain just and proportionate, preventing undue penalization through cumulative sentencing.

Moreover, the decision underscores the court's role in dynamically interpreting statutory provisions, such as the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003, ensuring their appropriate application across temporal divides.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Statutory Surcharge

A statutory surcharge is an additional financial penalty imposed on offenders, intended to fund victim support services. Under section 161A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, courts are mandated to impose this surcharge when sentencing individuals convicted of one or more offences.

Extended Licence Period

An extended licence period is a supervised period following the completion of a prison sentence. Under section 236A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, certain custodial sentences carry a mandatory one-year extension of licence, which requires the offender to adhere to specific conditions post-release.

Totality Principle

The totality principle ensures that the cumulative sentences for multiple offences do not result in a punishment that is disproportionate to the overall wrongdoing. It requires courts to consider the aggregate sentence in light of all relevant factors, including time already served.

Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO)

An SHPO restricts an offender's activities to prevent further sexual harm. It can include conditions such as prohibiting unsupervised contact with minors, ensuring the safety of potential victims.

Conclusion

The judgment in Dickinson v. R. serves as a pivotal reference in the realm of criminal sentencing, particularly for cases involving historical offences. By meticulously applying established precedents and legal principles, the Court of Appeal balanced the need for just punishment with considerations of fairness and proportionality. The decision emphasizes the judiciary's duty to adapt sentencing practices in light of evolving legal standards and the unique circumstances of each case, ensuring that justice is both served and tempered with humanity.