EMW, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant was convicted on 28 February 2022 at the Crown Court at The City of 13 counts of cruelty to a young person under 16, committed between September 1974 and July 1975. The offences involved three victims, referred to as C1, C2, and C4, who were siblings. The appellant’s former husband, referred to as S, was implicated in related sexual offences against C1 and C2. S died by suicide on the day he was due to appear in court as a co-defendant.

The victims endured severe physical and sexual abuse while living with S and the appellant following the murder of their mother in 1974. Despite some social worker involvement in the 1970s, no effective intervention occurred at that time. The abuse was reported to the police decades later, with C1 disclosing the abuse in 2019 and C2 interviewed in 2020. The appellant denied the allegations and maintained innocence throughout.

On 22 May 2023, the appellant was sentenced by the Crown Court at The City to a total term of 10 years’ imprisonment for the various counts of cruelty and for allowing S to commit sexual assaults on C1 and C2. The appellant appealed the sentence with leave of the single judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in treating all offences as involving the highest category of culpability and harm, particularly in relation to counts other than those involving sexual abuse.
2. Whether the sentencing judge failed to properly consider the appellant’s good character, advanced age, ill-health, and the passage of time in mitigation.
3. Whether the overall sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The appellant contended that the sentencing judge wrongly applied the highest category of culpability and harm to all offences, failing to distinguish between different types of cruelty and the number of incidents.
• It was argued that the sentencing judge did not adequately reduce the sentence to reflect the appellant’s previously good character, her advanced age, ill-health, and the significant lapse of time since the offences occurred.
• The appellant submitted that the total sentence of 10 years was manifestly excessive given the circumstances.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court considered the applicable sentencing guidelines, including those that came into force shortly before sentencing. It upheld the judge’s categorisation of harm as category 1 across the offences, reasoning that distinguishing between types of cruelty would be artificial given the overall criminal conduct endured by the victims.

The court noted that the judge had assessed culpability as "high" (category B), rather than "very high" (category A), and disagreed with the judge’s suggestion that offences against C4 should attract the same starting point as those involving sexual abuse, instead placing those offences in a lower culpability category (category C1).

Regarding totality, the court agreed with the judge’s approach of imposing consecutive sentences on counts involving different victims, with proportional reductions to reflect the aggregate sentence’s justness and proportionality. The court emphasized the sustained nature of the offending over a substantial period and the appellant’s active role in some of the conduct, alongside the major responsibility of S.

The court gave limited weight to the appellant’s good character prior to offending, noting it was lost early in the course of the criminal conduct. It also accepted a modest reduction for the appellant’s advanced age and health issues but found these factors did not justify interference with the sentence. The psychiatric condition was not relevant to the historical offending and was manageable in prison.

In conclusion, the court found the total sentence of 10 years to be proportionate and not manifestly excessive, and it declined to interfere with the sentencing judge’s decision. The court also quashed an erroneous statutory surcharge order imposed on the appellant, noting no such order should have been made given the date of the offences.

Holding and Implications

The appeal against sentence was DISMISSED.

The court upheld the total sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment imposed on the appellant for historic offences of cruelty and for allowing sexual assaults by her former husband. The decision confirms the application of sentencing guidelines for historic child cruelty and sexual abuse cases, including the approach to totality and the limited mitigating effect of advanced age and ill-health in such contexts.

No new legal precedent was established; the ruling affirms the sentencing judge’s discretion in assessing overall criminality and proportionality in complex historic abuse cases. The quashing of the surcharge order clarifies procedural correctness regarding financial penalties in historic offence cases.