BB, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant was tried and convicted in the Crown Court at Burnley before Her Honour Judge Dodd and a jury on 21 July 2023 for multiple sexual offences against two complainants, referred to as C1 and C2, who were his stepdaughters at the time of the offences. The offences occurred over a prolonged period during their childhoods, spanning from when C1 was aged 7 to 15 and C2 was aged 5 to 14 or 15. The appellant was sentenced on 18 August 2023 to a total of 16 years' imprisonment. The appellant appealed against the sentence with leave of the single judge. The offences involved indecent assault and indecency with a child, with several counts specifying repeated offences and the victims' ages at the time. The abuse was reported to police in 2018, and the appellant denied the allegations in interviews conducted in 2018 and 2019.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, considering the severity of the offences and the sentencing guidelines applicable both at the time of the offences and currently.
2. Whether the trial judge erred in her assessment of severe psychological harm suffered by one of the complainants, C2.
3. Whether the trial judge failed to adequately account for delay in bringing the case to trial and the impact of such delay on sentencing.
4. Whether the trial judge failed to make a "measured reference" to current sentencing guidelines as required by precedent, particularly regarding the application of maximum sentences under former legislation compared to modern guidelines.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge was incorrect in finding that C2 suffered severe psychological harm, as her victim personal statement described the harm as significant but not severe.
• The judge did not sufficiently reflect the effects of delay in the prosecution process, noting delays from initial police interviews in 2018 to trial commencement in 2023.
• The judge failed to make a proper "measured reference" to current sentencing guidelines, instead imposing sentences at or near the maximum allowed under historic legislation, contrary to principles established in R v Forbes and R v Lamb.
• Specific criticism was directed at the imposition of maximum sentences on certain counts related to both complainants, arguing that some offences were less serious and should have attracted lower sentences.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by affirming the application of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, ensuring anonymity of the complainants. It recognized the seriousness of the offences, which involved prolonged sexual abuse of two stepdaughters over many years. The sentencing judge had applied the principles from R v Forbes, considering maximum sentences available at the time of the offences and the modern equivalent offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

Regarding the assessment of severe psychological harm, the court relied on R v Chall and accepted the trial judge’s findings as supported by both victim personal statements and her observations of the complainant’s evidence in court.

On the issue of delay, the court noted that the judge had properly taken into account the extensive delays in prosecution and the impact on both the appellant and his partner. The judge’s mitigation reflected these factors appropriately.

The court examined the appellant’s contention that the judge failed to make a "measured reference" to current guidelines. It observed that the judge structured sentences to reflect totality, with some terms concurrent and others consecutive, ensuring proportionality. The court emphasized that "measured reference" is an evaluative exercise rather than a strict mathematical calculation and that the judge’s approach was consistent with precedent, including R v Lamb.

The court found that the reduction from a notional 20-year sentence to 16 years was substantial and that the overall sentencing exercise properly balanced historic maxima, modern guidelines, mitigation, and totality.

Having reviewed all individual and aggregate sentences, the court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had not erred in her sentencing approach.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appellant’s appeal against sentence.

The direct effect of this decision is that the appellant’s 16-year imprisonment sentence stands as imposed by the trial judge. The court’s ruling confirms the appropriateness of applying a holistic sentencing approach to historic sexual offences, balancing historic maximum penalties with modern sentencing guidelines and mitigation factors. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the court reaffirmed established principles concerning sentencing historic sexual offences and the assessment of psychological harm and delay.