Barker, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application for permission to appeal against sentence following refusal by a single judge and a renewed application to the full court.

The applicant, an 88-year-old priest, pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at The City to three counts of historic sexual offences committed in the 1960s. The offences involved indecent assault and indecency with a child, committed against a former pupil at a boarding school for those intending to join the priesthood, where the applicant was a priest and teacher.

The offences came to light following complaints made by an individual referred to as Mr C, who died shortly after the police investigation began. Another complainant, a former school friend of Mr C, gave a statement supporting the allegations and disclosed that he too had been subjected to similar abuse by the applicant.

The applicant initially denied the allegations but later changed his plea to guilty. On 11 March 2022, the applicant was sentenced to 28 months’ imprisonment for one count of indecent assault, with no separate penalty on the other two counts, and notification requirements were imposed.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in principle by failing to adjust the starting point of the sentencing guidelines to reflect the higher maximum penalties under the modern Sexual Offences Act 2003 for equivalent offences.
2. Whether the sentencing judge gave undue weight to aggravating factors and failed to properly consider mitigating factors, including the applicant’s age and character, such that the sentence was excessive or should have been suspended.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentencing judge erred by not adjusting the starting point in the sentencing guidelines to take account of the higher maximum sentences under the 2003 Sexual Offences Act for equivalent offences.
• The judge placed undue weight on aggravating factors and failed to adequately consider mitigating factors such as the applicant’s advanced age and good character.
• Had the sentencing judge applied the correct approach, the sentence would have been lower and potentially suspended.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully considered the sentencing guidelines applicable to historic sexual offences, specifically Annex B of the Sentencing Guidelines for Sexual Offences. These guidelines require sentencing to be conducted according to the regime in force at the date of sentence, focusing on the seriousness of the offence assessed by culpability and harm, rather than adjusting starting points to reflect modern maximum penalties.

The court found that the sentencing judge correctly applied these principles. The judge undertook a proper calibration exercise, recognizing the applicant’s position of trust and grooming, the nature of the offences, and the harm caused. The judge also appropriately discounted the applicant’s good character in light of the concealed offending.

The court rejected the argument that the sentencing judge gave undue weight to aggravating factors or failed to consider mitigating factors, noting the judge expressly accounted for all relevant considerations, including the applicant’s advanced age and character references.

Regarding the victim’s plea for leniency, the court emphasized that while the victim’s personal statement was considered, sentencing must be based on the offence and offender’s circumstances, not the victim’s opinion on the appropriate sentence.

Overall, the court concluded there was no error of principle or manifest excess in the sentence imposed.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the renewed application for permission to appeal the sentence.

The direct effect is that the applicant’s sentence of 28 months’ imprisonment stands as imposed. No new legal precedent was established, and the decision confirms the correct application of sentencing principles for historic sexual offences under the relevant guidelines and case law.