Ives, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Defendant was convicted on 1 November 2022 at the Crown Court at Isleworth before Judge Holt of 31 historical sexual offences committed over a 14-year period from 1976 to 1999 against five complainants aged between 5 and 15 at the time of the offences. The offences included indecency with a child, indecent assault of both females and males, and buggery. Following a pre-sentence report, the Defendant was sentenced on 31 March 2023 to a total of 22 years' imprisonment composed of concurrent sentences, with consecutive sentences for the two counts of buggery. Special custodial sentences with extended licence periods were also imposed on certain counts under the Sentencing Act 2020.

The Defendant seeks leave to appeal on the ground that the sentencing judge failed to have sufficient regard to the principle of totality, resulting in a manifestly excessive sentence. The Registrar of the Court of Appeal identified apparent unlawful elements in the imposition of special custodial sentences and referred the matter to the full court. Leave to appeal was granted on this issue.

The sentencing judge had detailed the Defendant's prolonged sexual abuse of five complainants, who were related or connected to the Defendant through family or personal relationships. The Defendant showed no remorse and denied the allegations. The offences involved grooming, escalating indecent assaults, and serious acts including anal rape of one complainant. The psychological and physical harm to the complainants was significant and lasting. The Defendant had a history of previous convictions for sexual offences and assaults on children. The judge considered the Defendant's poor physical and mental health but found these mitigations minimal compared to the gravity of the offending.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge failed to properly apply the totality principle in sentencing, resulting in a manifestly excessive sentence.
2. Whether the special custodial sentences imposed under section 278 of the Sentencing Act 2020 were lawfully applied to the relevant counts.
3. The appropriate adjustment of sentences on counts where unlawful special custodial sentences were imposed.

Arguments of the Parties

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

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first considered the totality principle in sentencing multiple offences. It acknowledged the serious and prolonged nature of the Defendant’s offences causing profound harm to multiple victims. The judge had carefully weighed aggravating and mitigating factors and applied the totality principle to impose a just and proportionate aggregate sentence of 22 years. The court found no arguable basis that the sentence was manifestly excessive and refused leave to appeal on that ground.

The court then addressed errors in the imposition of special custodial sentences under section 278 of the Sentencing Act 2020. It accepted that the judge was misadvised by counsel during sentencing and had imposed a special custodial sentence unlawfully on count 31, where the complainant was not under 13 years old, contrary to statutory requirements. The court granted leave to appeal on this point and allowed amendment of the grounds.

Further, the court identified that the judge failed to impose special custodial sentences on counts 17, 26, 28, and 29, which involved offences equivalent to rape or attempted rape of a child under 13, mandating such sentences under the legislation.

The court quashed and replaced the sentences for counts 17 and 26 with special custodial sentences including extended licence periods, and quashed and replaced counts 28 and 29 with concurrent special custodial sentences. To comply with the prohibition on imposing a more severe sentence on appeal (s.11(3) Criminal Appeal Act 1968), the court structured the sentences so that the overall licence period was not extended beyond that originally imposed. Counts 28 and 29 were treated as lead offences, maintaining the total sentence at 22 years’ imprisonment plus one year’s extended licence.

The court emphasized that these adjustments did not minimize the Defendant’s culpability or the harm caused but ensured the sentence was lawful and proportionate in accordance with legal principles.

Lastly, the court clarified that the victim surcharge provisions did not apply due to the date of earliest offending and confirmed no victim surcharge was ordered.

Holding and Implications

The court GRANTED LEAVE TO APPEAL on the issue of unlawful special custodial sentences and ALLOWED THE APPEAL IN PART by quashing and substituting sentences as follows:

• Count 31: Quashed the special custodial sentence and replaced it with a concurrent determinate sentence of 9 years.
• Count 17: Quashed the determinate sentence and replaced it with a concurrent special custodial sentence comprising 9 years custody plus 1 year extended licence.
• Count 26: Quashed the determinate sentence and replaced it with a concurrent special custodial sentence comprising 6 years custody plus 1 year extended licence.
• Counts 28 and 29: Quashed the sentences and replaced them with concurrent special custodial sentences comprising 22 years custody plus 1 year extended licence served concurrently with each other and all other offences.

The total effective sentence remains 22 years’ imprisonment with one additional year of licence, maintaining the original sentence length but ensuring compliance with statutory sentencing requirements. The court refused leave to appeal on the ground of manifest excessiveness, thereby upholding the overall sentence’s proportionality.

No new legal precedent was established beyond clarifying the correct application of special custodial sentences under the Sentencing Act 2020 and the application of the totality principle in complex multi-count sexual offence cases.