SG, R v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, aged 19 at the time, was convicted by the Recorder of Belfast, HH Judge Burgess, following guilty pleas to multiple counts involving unlawful carnal knowledge, indecent assault, and gross indecency with a female child aged 13, referred to as the Victim. The offences occurred between December 2006 and May 2007. The relationship between the Appellant and Victim was consensual, but the Appellant was aware of the Victim's young age. The Appellant initially pleaded not guilty but later pleaded guilty to the majority of counts. He was sentenced to a total of 4 years imprisonment, with a sexual offences prevention order imposed and a requirement to sign the sex offenders' register indefinitely.

The Victim disclosed the relationship in January 2007, fearing pregnancy. The Victim's family reported the matter to police and social services. Despite intervention and a previous suspended sentence related to sexual activity with a 15-year-old, the Appellant recommenced contact with the Victim, resulting in further offences. The Appellant denied the relationship during police interviews until trial. A Pre-Sentence Report indicated the Appellant was aware of the Victim's true age and posed a high risk of re-offending. Psychological assessment of the Victim revealed significant trauma and emotional difficulties resulting from the offences.

The Appellant appealed the sentence as manifestly excessive, arguing immaturity, the consensual nature of the relationship, and contesting the imposition of consecutive sentences for certain counts.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the total sentence of 4 years imprisonment was manifestly excessive in light of the facts and circumstances.
2. Whether it was appropriate to impose a consecutive sentence on the count of indecent assault in addition to sentences for unlawful carnal knowledge committed at the same time.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contended that he was immature for his age and had been introduced to the Victim through the same social group.
• He emphasized the consensual nature of the sexual activity.
• The Victim had pre-existing problems at school and there was no long-lasting impact on her.
• The Appellant had pleaded guilty eventually, which should be reflected in sentencing.
• It was submitted that imposing a consecutive sentence for indecent assault alongside unlawful carnal knowledge offences was incorrect in principle.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the Respondent's legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by emphasizing that the offender's culpability is the primary indicator of the seriousness of the offences. It considered the age and vulnerability of the Victim, the significant age gap between the Appellant and the Victim, and the Appellant's youth and immaturity. The Recorder was satisfied that the Appellant knew the Victim was underage throughout the offending period and took a particularly serious view of the Appellant renewing his offending after being warned off by the Victim's father.

The Court noted the considerable trauma caused to the Victim, including psychological effects and impact on her schooling. The Court rejected the submission that the Appellant was immature, finding no support for this in the Pre-Sentence Report, which noted low self-esteem and vulnerability but not immaturity.

The Court focused on the global sentence imposed rather than dissecting concurrent or consecutive sentences individually. It referred to the absence of specific local sentencing guidelines but found guidance in the Sentencing Guidelines Council's report from England and Wales, which suggests a starting point of 4 years imprisonment for similar offences involving penile penetration.

The Court acknowledged some credit for the late guilty plea but emphasized that the Appellant initially denied all allegations robustly. Two aggravating factors were identified: the Appellant's prior relevant conviction and the renewal of offending after being warned off. The Court accepted that the sentence for the indecent assault count should be concurrent rather than consecutive but upheld the overall sentence, ordering one later count to be consecutive and another concurrent, resulting in no effective change to the total sentence.

Holding and Implications

The Court ALLOWED THE APPEAL IN PART to the extent of adjusting the concurrency and consecutiveness of certain counts but UPHELD THE TOTAL SENTENCE OF 4 YEARS IMPRISONMENT.

The sexual offences prevention order and indefinite registration on the sex offenders' register remain in place. The decision affirms the seriousness of offences involving sexual activity with underage victims, particularly where there is a significant age gap and repeated offending despite warnings. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling primarily confirms the appropriateness of the original sentence given the facts and aggravating circumstances.