Ludar-Smith, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, aged 49 at the time of pleading, was convicted of three offences of sexual assault of a child under 13. The offences occurred when the complainant was between 9 and 11 years old. The appellant was a trusted family friend who sexually assaulted the complainant on three separate occasions at her home. The offences involved inappropriate touching and sexual contact described by the complainant as "grabby" and "weird and wrong." The appellant initially denied the offences but pleaded guilty approximately six months before trial. He had a significant history of prior sexual offences against children, including convictions before and after the current offending.

The appellant was sentenced in the Crown Court at Cambridge to three consecutive one-year imprisonment terms, totaling three years. He appealed the sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the overall sentence of three years' imprisonment, imposed consecutively for the three offences, was manifestly excessive.
2. Whether insufficient weight was given to the principle of totality in sentencing.
3. Whether insufficient weight was given to the fact that the offending pre-dated offending for which the appellant had already served a substantial custodial sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentence was manifestly excessive due to inadequate application of the totality principle, suggesting that concurrent sentences or a significant reduction should have been applied if consecutive sentences were imposed.
• Insufficient weight was given to the fact that the offending predated other offences for which the appellant had already served substantial custodial sentences.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the seriousness of the offences, noting that the appellant committed three separate sexual assaults on a young child in her own home, exploiting the complainant's naivety and expectation of silence. The appellant's prior convictions for sexual offences against children were a significant aggravating factor, indicating an entrenched pattern of offending. The court acknowledged the substantial psychological harm suffered by the complainant, as detailed in the Victim Personal Statement, which included ongoing anger, behavioural changes, and distrust of men.

The sentencing guideline categorised the offences at Harm Category 3 and Culpability B, with a starting point of six months' custody for a single offence. The judge had set a starting point of 15 months per count, which was then modestly reduced due to the guilty plea. The judge imposed consecutive one-year sentences, indicating that while the total sentence was not sufficient in his view, the law limited his options.

The court considered the principle of totality and the possibility of concurrent sentences or a single sentence reflecting total offending, with other offences as aggravating factors. The court found that the total sentence of three years was manifestly excessive given the circumstances and the appropriate application of sentencing principles, including the credit for guilty pleas and the harm categorisation. The court concluded that a total sentence of two years and three months' imprisonment, achieved by imposing consecutive sentences of nine months each, was just and proportionate.

Holding and Implications

The appeal against sentence was ALLOWED.

The court quashed the original sentences of one year’s imprisonment on each count and substituted consecutive sentences of nine months’ imprisonment on each count, resulting in a total sentence of two years and three months’ imprisonment. This decision directly reduces the appellant’s custodial term and clarifies the appropriate application of the totality principle and harm categorisation in sentencing multiple sexual offences against a child. No new precedent was established beyond the specific adjustment of sentence in this case.