McKeown, R v

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns a sentence imposed on the Appellant by the Crown Court at Bolton on 6 March 2020. The Appellant was sentenced to a total of six years' imprisonment on nine counts related to sexual offences against a child under 13, specifically his niece, referred to as "A" to preserve anonymity. The Appellant pleaded guilty to seven counts at an earlier hearing and to the remaining two counts on the day of trial. The offences occurred over a period when the Appellant was aged 11 to 16, and involved both the Appellant touching A and A touching the Appellant. The offences took place at A's home, which the Appellant visited regularly.

The Appellant was of previous good character and was 23 years old at sentencing. The offences caused significant harm to A, who disclosed the abuse in late 2017 after the Appellant had moved into her family home. The Appellant made admissions to police following his arrest but initially gave no comment during his first interview. The case experienced a considerable delay between the offences, disclosure, arrest, and eventual charge in February 2019.

The Recorder at first instance categorized the offences under the relevant sentencing guidelines as category 2B for counts 1 to 8 and category 3B for count 9, with a starting point of two years' custody for an adult offender. Mitigating factors included the Appellant’s youth, lack of maturity, absence of previous convictions, remorse, delay in proceedings, and a 25% reduction for guilty pleas. The Recorder imposed a total effective sentence of six years' imprisonment, composed of consecutive sentences reflecting the years during which the offences occurred.

The Appellant appealed on grounds that the sentence was excessive, insufficient weight was given to his age at the time of offending, and insufficient regard was paid to the delay in prosecution.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the total sentence of six years' imprisonment was excessive in light of the Appellant’s age at the time of the offences and other mitigating factors.
2. Whether the sentencing court gave appropriate weight to the age of the Appellant when the offences were committed.
3. Whether the delay in prosecution was sufficiently considered in the sentencing process.

Arguments of the Parties

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

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the applicable Sentencing Guideline on Sentencing Children and Young People, specifically paragraphs 6.1 to 6.3, which address sentencing where an offender passes significant age thresholds between the commission of offences and the finding of guilt. The court noted that the Appellant passed the ages of 12, 15, and 18 during the relevant period, and that the starting point for sentencing should be the sentence likely to have been imposed at the time the offences were committed, with adjustments for the purposes of sentencing adult offenders.

The court explained that the maximum sentence available to a 16-year-old offender for these offences would have been a detention and training order not exceeding 24 months. Considering the number and severity of offences and the discount for guilty pleas, the likely sentence at that time would have been approximately 18 months. The court held that while it is appropriate to increase the sentence due to the adult sentencing considerations, it is rarely appropriate to exceed the maximum sentence available at the time of offending.

The court found that the original sentence of six years exceeded the appropriate maximum and was therefore excessive. It quashed the original sentences and substituted concurrent sentences of two years’ imprisonment on counts 7, 8, and 9, with no separate penalty on counts 1 to 6, resulting in a total sentence of two years’ imprisonment. The court further held that immediate custody was necessary despite factors that might otherwise support suspension.

The court also corrected a minor error in the sentencing remarks regarding the statutory surcharge, noting it did not apply due to the dates of the offences.

Holding and Implications

The court quashed the original six-year sentence and substituted a total sentence of two years' imprisonment.

The direct effect of this decision is a significant reduction in the Appellant’s sentence, reflecting proper application of sentencing guidelines for young offenders and the consideration of age thresholds. The ruling emphasizes the importance of applying the Sentencing Guideline on Sentencing Children and Young People, particularly where offences span multiple age categories and the offender reaches adulthood before sentencing. The decision does not establish new precedent but clarifies the application of existing guidelines and underscores the need for counsel and courts to refer to relevant guidelines to avoid unnecessary appeals.