REGINA v DJ

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant faced numerous serious sexual offences committed against young girls over an extended period. Some offences were admitted by guilty pleas, while others were proven at two separate trials. On 11th February 2014, the Appellant was sentenced in the Crown Court at Guildford to an extended sentence of 39 years, consisting of 33 years custody and a 6-year extension period, alongside a victim surcharge order and an indefinite sexual offences prevention order.

The offences involved multiple victims, including the Appellant’s daughter and other young girls, with acts ranging from grooming and sexual abuse to the creation and possession of indecent images. The abuse spanned years and included aggravating factors such as breaches of trust, grooming, threats, and exploitation of vulnerable children. The Appellant was also found to have filmed some offences and shared indecent images with third parties. The Appellant was 49 years old at sentencing and had no previous convictions.

The Appellant renewed an application for leave to appeal against conviction and appealed the sentence with leave of a single judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the convictions relating to the Appellant’s daughter were unsafe due to the wrongful admission of certain bad character evidence.
2. Whether the custodial sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, particularly regarding the principle of totality and proportionality in sentencing.
3. The technical correctness of the extended sentence structure and related extension periods.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contended that the admission of certain bad character evidence, specifically videos depicting extremely young children, was wrongful and rendered the convictions unsafe.
• It was argued that the propensity evidence relating to abuse of much younger children was of limited relevance to the allegations made by the Appellant’s daughter and was unduly prejudicial.
• Regarding sentence, the Appellant submitted that despite the serious nature of offences, the custodial term was too long and did not sufficiently reflect the principle of totality.
• Reference was made to established case law suggesting that sentences of such length should be reserved for the worst cases, contending that this case fell short of that threshold.

Court's Response to Arguments

• The Court found that the trial judge was entitled to admit the bad character evidence as it was relevant to demonstrate a propensity to commit offences against very young children, countering the Appellant’s claim that the allegations were fabricated.
• The Court was satisfied that the judge gave appropriate warnings to the jury to guard against prejudice arising from the nature of the evidence.
• On sentencing, the Court acknowledged the grave nature of the offending but concluded that the custodial term was too long overall and did not sufficiently allow for totality.
• The Court adjusted the custodial term downward while regularising the extended sentence structure to align with statutory requirements.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court carefully reviewed the admission of bad character evidence, focusing on its relevance to the issue of propensity to commit offences against very young children. The Court found that this evidence was properly admitted under section 101(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, as it was highly relevant to counter the Appellant’s claim that allegations were fabricated. The Court also noted that the trial judge provided adequate warnings to the jury to mitigate potential prejudice.

Regarding sentencing, the Court acknowledged the exceptional seriousness of the offences, involving multiple victims and numerous aggravating factors including breaches of trust, grooming, recording of offences, and threats. However, it concluded that the custodial term was disproportionately long and did not sufficiently reflect the principle of totality. The Court carefully compared this case with established precedents, noting differences in the nature and extent of violence and other aggravating features.

The Court adjusted the custodial term downwards from 33 to 30 years by reducing the sentence on one indictment, while maintaining the overall extended sentence structure. The Court identified a technical error in the judge’s imposition of the extension period, clarifying that extension periods must be attached to individual offences for consecutive extended sentences to be lawful. The Court regularised the sentence accordingly, resulting in an extended sentence of 36 years composed of 30 years custody and a 6-year extension period.

The victim surcharge order was found to have been unlawfully made and was quashed.

Holding and Implications

The Court REFUSED LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION, finding no arguable basis to challenge the admission of bad character evidence and confirming the safety of the convictions.

The Court ALLOWED THE APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE IN PART by reducing the custodial term from 33 to 30 years and regularising the extended sentence structure to comply with statutory requirements. The victim surcharge order was quashed as unlawful.

The direct effect is the adjustment of the sentence to better reflect sentencing principles of totality and proportionality without undermining the gravity of the offences. No new legal precedent was established by this decision.