Roberts, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

During a period in 1985, when he was aged between 15 years nine months and 16 years nine months, the offender committed serious sexual offences against a girl aged between six years 11 months and seven years 11 months. In July 2024, before Assistant Judge Advocate General Smith, he was sentenced by the Court-Martial to a total of four years' imprisonment. His Majesty's Solicitor General believed the sentence to be unduly lenient and applied pursuant to section 273 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 for leave to refer the case to this court for sentencing review.

The victim, referred to as "V," is entitled to lifelong protection under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, preventing any publication likely to identify her. Both the offender and V were children of servicemen serving in Germany and lived in army accommodation.

The offender was convicted after a Court-Martial trial of nine offences contrary to section 70 of the Army Act 1955, comprising one count of rape under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and eight counts of indecency with a child under the Indecency with Children Act 1960. The offences involved various acts of sexual assault and penetration committed over several occasions.

The offences had a grave, long-lasting effect on V, who initially felt confused and wrongfully responsible. The offender has since led a law-abiding life, serving in the Armed Forces with one prior detention for theft, and has no other convictions or cautions. Jurisdiction was established through the Court-Martial due to the offender's father's service abroad at the material time.

At sentencing, the judge considered a victim personal statement, letters from the offender's family, and mitigating factors including the offender's health and family circumstances. The judge applied the Children guideline and relevant sentencing principles as set out in Ahmed and others [2023] EWCA Crim 281, concluding that a total sentence of four years' imprisonment was appropriate, structured with concurrent and consecutive terms for the various offences.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the total sentence of four years' imprisonment imposed by the Court-Martial was unduly lenient and should be increased on review.
2. Whether the sentencing judge erred in having regard to release on licence provisions when structuring the sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Solicitor General's Arguments

• The total sentence was unduly lenient given the seriousness and aggravating factors of the offences.
• Reference to R v Billam [1986] 1 WLR 349 established a starting point of five years for adult rape without mitigating features, with higher sentences for aggravating factors such as the victim's young age and additional sexual indignities.
• Comparison with R v SJ [2023] EWCA Crim 651, involving similar but more serious offences committed by an older offender, showed a significantly higher sentence, illustrating the leniency of the current sentence.
• Aggravating factors included the young age of the victim, the offender's position of power and responsibility as a babysitter, grooming behaviour, threats to prevent reporting, and the serious ongoing effect on the victim.
• Mitigating factors acknowledged included the offender's age at the time, good character before and after the offences, and health issues potentially making imprisonment more onerous.
• Submission that the judge improperly considered early release provisions in structuring the sentence, although this was a secondary point.

Offender's Arguments

• No criticism could be made of the judge's approach or conclusion.
• In R v Billam, sentencing for sexual offences prior to 1986 included non-custodial sentences, and a young offender would not invariably have been detained under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.
• The judge's careful consideration and application of sentencing principles were appropriate given the historical context and the offender's circumstances.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Ahmed and others [2023] EWCA Crim 281	Principles for sentencing adults for offences committed as children, including use of Children guideline and consideration of statutory maximum at the time of offending.	The court applied these principles to determine the appropriate sentence starting point and available custodial options circa 1986.
R v Billam [1986] 1 WLR 349	Established sentencing starting point for adult rape and aggravating factors increasing sentence severity.	The court considered this precedent to assess the appropriateness of the sentence relative to historical sentencing standards.
R v SJ [2023] EWCA Crim 651	Sentencing guidelines for offences committed by 16-17 year olds involving serious sexual offences against a young victim.	The court distinguished the facts of SJ from the present case and found that the precedent did not support increasing the sentence here.
R v BPO [2024] EWCA Crim 517	Reiteration that early release provisions should not ordinarily be taken into account by sentencing judges.	The court rejected the submission that the judge erred by considering release provisions when structuring the sentence.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the sentencing context at the time of the offences in 1985-1986, considering the legislative framework and sentencing options available to courts for young offenders, including youth custody and detention under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. It acknowledged the seriousness and aggravating factors of the offences but also weighed mitigating factors such as the offender's age, good character, and difficult imprisonment circumstances.

The court accepted that an adult offender in 1986 would have received a substantially higher sentence for similar offences but concluded that a 16-year-old offender would not likely have been sentenced to more than four years' custody. It found no support in the precedent of R v SJ for increasing the sentence given the materially different facts of that case.

The court also found no error in the judge’s structuring of concurrent and consecutive sentences, rejecting the submission that consideration of release on licence provisions influenced the sentence improperly.

Ultimately, the court determined that the total sentence of four years was not unduly lenient and did not warrant interference.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED LEAVE TO REFER the case for sentencing review, concluding that the total sentence of four years' imprisonment was not unduly lenient.

The direct effect is that the sentence imposed by the Court-Martial stands. No new precedent was established, and the decision reinforces the application of historical sentencing principles and the careful balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors in cases involving offences committed by young offenders.