- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Green v REGINA
Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant was convicted at Lewes Crown Court on 21 September 2018 of 17 counts of indecent assault involving seven victims, hereinafter referred to as GP, SW, GW, SH, DR, TR, and PE. The offences, committed over a period exceeding a decade from about 1980, involved the Appellant abusing his position as a coach in ice-hockey, motorcycle speedway, and cricket to perpetrate sexual assaults against young boys under his charge. The Appellant was sentenced to a total of 12 years' imprisonment following a trial before Miss Recorder Sarah Elliott QC and a jury. The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 applies, restricting publication of victim-identifying information.
The Appellant had previously served a 9-year sentence for more serious offences, including buggery, overlapping in time with some of the offences now under appeal. The current appeal challenges the sentence imposed in 2018 as manifestly excessive in light of the prior sentence.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentencing judge erred in refusing to take into account the Appellant’s previous custodial sentence when imposing the current sentence for overlapping historic sexual offences.
- How the principle of totality and the approach to cumulative sentencing should be applied when multiple sentences relate to overlapping historic offences.
- Whether an allowance or reduction should be made in the current sentence to reflect the prior sentence already served.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The offences sentenced in 2018 overlapped in time with those for which the Appellant was sentenced in 2014, and were not more serious in nature.
- If all offences had been sentenced together, the total sentence would not have reached 21 years.
- The sentencing judge should have reduced the current sentence to reflect the previous 9-year sentence already served, effectively considering the overall sentence that would have been imposed had all offences been dealt with at once.
Respondent's Arguments
- The Crown referred to previous Court of Appeal decisions emphasizing a nuanced approach to considering previous sentences for similar historic criminality.
- They highlighted the difficulty in adjusting sentences retrospectively and the importance of considering factors such as whether the offender had an opportunity to disclose all offences earlier.
- The Respondent referred to cases illustrating that a later sentence should not necessarily be reduced simply because of a prior sentence, especially where the offender failed to disclose all offences at the earlier sentencing.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Cosburn [2013] EWCA Crim 1815 | Guidance on how courts should approach sentencing when previous sentences for similar historic offences exist, emphasizing a case-by-case nuanced approach rather than strict totality application. | The court endorsed the principle that the judge sentencing on new offences should consider all circumstances to decide whether to adjust the sentence to take prior sentences into account, without an exhaustive list of factors. |
| R v McLean [2017] EWCA Crim 170 | Consideration of offender conduct in failing to disclose offences and the risk of unjustly reducing sentences by retrospectively combining offences. | The court held that offenders who deliberately withhold offending cannot claim to be sentenced as if all offences were dealt with together, to avoid giving an undeserved bonus. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court acknowledged the complexity of sentencing in cases involving multiple historic offences overlapping in time and involving similar conduct. It held that the sentencing judge erred in refusing to consider the prior custodial sentence solely on the basis of the gravity of the current offences. Instead, the judge should have undertaken a nuanced exercise, considering various factors including the recency of the previous sentence, the similarity and temporal overlap of offences, the offender's conduct in disclosing or concealing offences, and the offender’s age and health.
The court emphasized that the exercise is not a simple arithmetic deduction of the prior sentence from a hypothetical aggregate sentence but a discretionary assessment informed by relevant circumstances. The Appellant’s failure to disclose the additional offences earlier and his contesting them at trial weighed against a full reduction. However, given the overlap and the totality principle, some allowance was warranted.
Applying these principles, the court found that while the total sentence of 21 years would have been excessive if imposed at once, the current sentence should be reduced modestly. The court exercised its discretion by making the sentence for counts 15-18 concurrent rather than consecutive, thereby reducing the total sentence served from 12 to 10 years.
Holding and Implications
The court ALLOWED the appeal in part by reducing the effective sentence from 12 years to 10 years' imprisonment. This was achieved by ordering that the sentence for counts 15-18 run concurrently rather than consecutively with the earlier sentences.
The decision clarifies that sentencing judges must consider prior sentences for overlapping historic offences in a discretionary and nuanced manner, taking into account multiple factors including offender conduct and the principle of totality. However, the court also confirmed that offenders who fail to disclose offences earlier may not receive full credit, thereby balancing fairness to the offender with public interest.
No new precedent was established, but the ruling reinforces established principles from previous Court of Appeal decisions regarding sentencing for historic sexual offences and the treatment of cumulative sentences.
Alert