Ambrose, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The offender, aged 72 at the time of sentencing, was a coach at a youth football club in West London between 1981 and 1991. During this period, he sexually abused two boys, referred to as "W" and "C," aged between 7 and 11. The offender befriended the parents of the first victim, W, and gained their trust, allowing W to stay at his home on occasions, during which the abuse occurred. The second victim, C, was similarly abused after being taken to the offender's home following football club sessions.

In 2016, following a general appeal by the NSPCC for victims of abuse by youth football coaches to come forward, C reported the abuse. Police investigations led to interviews with both victims in early 2017. The offender was arrested in April 2017 but denied the allegations.

The case experienced significant delay, with multiple requests by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for further material before charges were finally brought in December 2022. The offender initially pleaded not guilty to ten counts but later pleaded guilty to nine counts, with one count left on file.

On 7th March 2024, the offender was sentenced to concurrent suspended prison terms totaling two years for indecent assault counts and one year for indecency with a child counts, alongside unpaid work, rehabilitation activity, and a Sexual Harm Prevention Order of indefinite duration.

His Majesty's Solicitor General applied for the sentences to be referred to the court as unduly lenient under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentences imposed on the offender were unduly lenient in light of the nature and seriousness of the offences.
2. How the sentencing guidelines, including the Sexual Offences Act 2003 equivalent offences and the effect of delay, should be applied in determining an appropriate sentence.
3. The appropriate extent of reduction in sentence due to the offender's guilty pleas, personal mitigation, and the delay in prosecution.

Arguments of the Parties

Solicitor General's Arguments

• The sentencing judge was required to apply the sentencing regime current at the date of sentence, referencing the Sexual Offences Act 2003 guidelines for equivalent modern offences.
• The offences should be categorized as serious, with indecent assault offences treated as category 1A and indecency with a child as category 2A, reflecting abuse of trust and grooming.
• The appropriate starting point for sentence should have exceeded seven years' custody before mitigation and reductions.
• Delay in prosecution, while a mitigating factor, did not justify the large reduction applied by the sentencing judge.
• Personal mitigation was limited, and the offender's health issues were manageable in prison.

Offender's Arguments

• The sentencing judge was experienced and conducted the sentencing appropriately throughout the case.
• The delay was exceptional and the sentencing allowed victims closure.
• Personal mitigation including health issues and progress made during unpaid work justified the sentence imposed.
• Concurrent sentences were appropriate, and the sentence imposed was not unduly lenient despite being possibly regarded as lenient.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Forbes and Others [2016] EWCA Crim 1388	Requirement to apply sentencing regime current at the date of sentence, with reference to modern equivalent offences.	Used to support the approach that sentencing should be guided by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 equivalents, balancing maximum sentences available at the time of offending.
R v Mboma [2024] EWCA Crim 110	Effect of unreasonable delay in proceedings on sentencing and appropriate reduction in sentence.	Referenced in assessing appropriate reduction for delay; established that a reduction of about 20% is appropriate where delay causes substantial detrimental effect on the offender.
R v Timpson [2023] EWCA Crim 453	Guidance on reduction of sentence for delay in prosecution.	Supported the principle that reduction for delay should be around 20% when the offender suffers significant detriment.
Attorney General's Reference No 4 of 1989 [1990] 1 WLR 41	Test for determining whether a sentence is unduly lenient.	Applied to assess whether the sentencing judge’s discretion fell within a reasonable range of appropriate sentences.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the serious nature of the offences, involving grooming and abuse of trust, and the significant lifelong impact on the victims. The sentencing judge’s initial assessment that a total sentence of around seven years before mitigation was appropriate was not unreasonable, given the number and nature of offences.

However, the court found that the sentencing judge erred in the extent of reduction applied for personal mitigation and delay. The personal mitigation was considered limited, and the offender’s health issues were manageable in prison. The offender’s good character and lack of further offending had limited weight due to the serious nature of the offences.

The court emphasized that the sentencing judge appeared to reduce the sentence by approximately 50% for delay, which was excessive and unjustified by the facts or relevant guidelines. Unlike cases where offences are promptly investigated but followed by long delays, this case involved a different context, including the offender’s prior convictions and failure to disclose offences earlier.

Balancing all factors, the court concluded that a reasonable sentence reflecting all mitigating factors and delay would be five and a half years’ custody before reduction for the guilty plea, resulting in an effective sentence of four years and four months.

The time already served on unpaid work was also taken into account in adjusting the sentence.

Holding and Implications

The court held that the original sentence was UNDULY LENIENT.

The sentences imposed by the sentencing judge were quashed. The court substituted sentences of four years' imprisonment for the indecent assault offences and eighteen months' imprisonment for the indecency with a child offences. These sentences are to run concurrently, resulting in a total effective sentence of four years' imprisonment, to be served immediately.

The offender will be subject to lifetime notification requirements under sections 80 and 82 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The offender must surrender to the designated police station by noon on the specified date.

No new legal precedent was established; the decision primarily affects the parties by adjusting the sentence to reflect appropriate application of sentencing guidelines and principles regarding delay and mitigation.