Introduction

The case of Harrison, R. v ([2024] EWCA Crim 1015) addresses significant issues regarding the adequacy of sentencing in sexual offence cases, specifically those involving children. The respondent, a 63-year-old male with a history of sexual offences, was initially sentenced to four years' imprisonment for two counts of causing or inciting girls under the age of 13 to engage in sexual activity. The Solicitor General contended that these sentences were unduly lenient, prompting an appeal to the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal agreed with the Solicitor General, determining that the initial sentences were indeed unduly lenient. The appellate court emphasized that the starting point for sentences in such cases should have been six years of custody, considering the offender's previous convictions and the fact that the offences involved two child victims. Additionally, the court highlighted the necessity of categorizing the offender as dangerous, thereby mandating an extended licence period to protect the public. Consequently, the original sentences were quashed and substituted with a concurrent custodial period of six years and an extended licence period of five years.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment heavily referenced several key precedents:

• Plaku & others [2021] EWCA Crim 658: Highlighted the importance of considering charges both individually and collectively when determining sentence reductions.
• Attorney-General's Reference (Azad) [2021] EWCA Crim 1846: Established principles for applications under s.36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, particularly regarding what constitutes an unduly lenient sentence.
• Bryant [2017] EWCA Crim 1662: Emphasized the need to assess the danger posed by an offender post-release and the adequacy of ancillary orders in mitigating risk.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered on the guidelines set forth by the Sentencing Council and the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Sentencing Code. Key points include:

• Sentencing Guidelines: The Sentencing Council's Definitive Guideline for sexual offences recommends a starting point of six years' custody for category 2B offences, which was not adequately applied in the initial sentencing.
• Dangerous Offender Assessment: Under s.280 of the Sentencing Code, the offender's history and the nature of his current offences warranted classification as a dangerous offender, necessitating an extended licence period.
• Credibility of Guilty Pleas: The timing of the guilty pleas, entered after the cross-examination of child witnesses, limited the reduction typically granted for such pleas. The court applied a more stringent reduction in line with Criminal Practice Directions 2023.

Impact

This judgment has several implications for future cases:

• Sentencing Consistency: Reinforces the necessity for courts to adhere strictly to Sentencing Council guidelines, especially in cases involving sexual offences against minors.
• Dangerous Offender Designation: Highlights the importance of thoroughly assessing and appropriately categorizing offenders based on their history and the risk they pose.
• Reduction for Guilty Pleas: Clarifies the application of sentence reductions when guilty pleas are entered post-evidence presentation, potentially leading to more conservative reductions in similar circumstances.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 36 Criminal Justice Act 1988

This section allows higher courts to review and potentially alter sentences passed by lower courts if they are deemed grossly inappropriate or unduly lenient.

Extended Sentence

An extended sentence combines a period of custody with an extended licence period, which imposes additional restrictions on the offender after release to protect the public.

Category 2B Offence

Under the Sentencing Council guidelines, category 2B offences are serious sexual offences against children. These categories help standardize sentencing based on the severity and circumstances of the crime.

Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP)

A type of sentence intended for offenders deemed to pose a significant risk to the public. It includes custody and a licence period with strict conditions to prevent reoffending.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in Harrison, R. v underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that sentences for sexual offences, particularly those involving children, are both just and adequately deterrent. By rectifying the initial lenient sentencing and classifying the offender as dangerous, the court not only serves justice in this specific case but also sets a robust precedent for future cases. This judgment emphasizes the necessity of adhering to established sentencing guidelines, appropriately assessing offender risk, and ensuring public protection through extended sentencing where warranted.