Factual and Procedural Background
On 6 December 2023, in the Crown Court at Burnley, the Appellant was sentenced for multiple sexual offences involving two separate victims, referred to as C1 and C2. The offences took place over a period of approximately five years, between about 2007 and 2012. The Appellant was about 15 years old at the time of the offences against C1 and committed offences against C2 both as a minor and as an adult. The Appellant pleaded guilty to several offences involving both victims. The total sentence initially imposed was six years and six months' imprisonment. The Appellant accepted the sentence regarding offences against C2 but appealed the sentences related to C1, which were 18 months' imprisonment for each of two offences to run concurrently but consecutive to the sentences for C2.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentences imposed for the offences against C1 were wrong in principle and manifestly excessive.
- The appropriate approach to sentencing an adult offender for offences committed while under 18, including the relevance of sentencing guidelines for children and young persons.
- The correct application of the Sentencing Council Guidelines and statutory maximum sentences for offences committed by persons under 18.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The sentence of 18 months for the offences against C1 was wrong in principle and manifestly excessive.
- The judge appeared to have taken the maximum available sentence of 24 months and simply reduced it by 25% for the guilty plea, without properly considering the sentence that would have been likely at the time of offending when the Appellant was a child.
- Relied on the decision in R v Ahmed [2023] EWCA Crim 281, [2023] 1 WLR 281, which requires sentencing judges to consider the sentence likely to have been imposed if the offender had been sentenced as a child and to apply relevant guidelines accordingly.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| R v Ahmed [2023] EWCA Crim 281, [2023] 1 WLR 281 |
Guidance on sentencing an adult for offences committed as a child, including consideration of the Sentencing Council Guideline on Sentencing Children and Young Persons and assessment of likely sentence at time of offending. |
The court applied Ahmed to determine that the sentencing judge should have considered the sentence likely to have been imposed at the time of offending when the Appellant was under 18, including statutory maximums and relevant guidelines, rather than simply reducing the maximum adult sentence. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by confirming the relevant reporting restrictions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. The offences involved two victims over multiple occasions and years, with the Appellant committing offences both as a child and as an adult. The sentencing judge had taken one offence against C2 as the lead offence and imposed a sentence consistent with the relevant Sentencing Council guideline for adults.
For the offences against C1, committed when the Appellant was under 18, the judge imposed concurrent 18-month sentences, consecutive to the sentence for C2, reflecting a maximum 24-month detention and training order reduced by 25% for the guilty plea.
The court considered the principles from R v Ahmed, which require sentencing judges to have regard to the sentence likely to have been imposed at the time of offending when the offender was a child, including statutory maximums and relevant guidelines such as the Sentencing Council Guideline on Sexual Activity with a Child and the Guidelines on Sentencing Children and Young People.
The court identified that the maximum sentence for the Appellant's offences against C1 as a child was a 24-month detention and training order. However, the appropriate sentence should not be based solely on the maximum but rather on a realistic assessment of the likely sentence at the time, adjusted for the lower maximum available to children compared to adults.
Applying the relevant guidelines, the court categorized the offences against C1 as Category 1B under the Sentencing Council Guideline, with a starting point for adults of one year's custody and a range from a high-level community order to two years' custody. This was scaled down to reflect the lower maximum for under-18 offenders. The court reasoned that a sentence of about six months would have been appropriate before reduction for the guilty plea, resulting in approximately four months for count 5 and three months for count 6 after reduction.
The court emphasized that each case depends on its specific facts. The total sentence must be just and proportionate, considering all offences and circumstances, including the course of conduct, the age differences between the Appellant and victims, and the presence of financial inducements in the offences against C2.
Holding and Implications
The court ALLOWED THE APPEAL IN PART. It quashed the 18-month sentences on counts 5 and 6 relating to C1 and substituted sentences of four months' imprisonment on count 5 and three months' imprisonment on count 6. These sentences are to be served concurrently with each other but consecutively to the sentence for offences against C2. The total sentence is therefore adjusted to five years and four months' imprisonment.
The decision directly affects the Appellant's sentence by reducing the custodial period for offences committed as a child. No new precedent beyond the application of existing principles and guidelines was established. The ruling underscores the importance of appropriately calibrating sentences for adult offenders for offences committed as children, ensuring proportionality and adherence to statutory limits and sentencing guidelines.