GMB, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal against sentence brought with the leave of the single judge. The appellant, aged 76, pleaded guilty on 8 October 2024 at the Crown Court at Worcester to nine counts of indecent assault contrary to section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. On 5 December 2024, he was sentenced to six and a half years' imprisonment to be served consecutively to a 34-month sentence imposed for similar offending, for which he was already in prison.

The offences occurred over a period between 1971 and 1996, during which the appellant was a leader of a Scouts Association and ran Church Camps in Worcestershire. The victims were four individuals, all abused as prepubescent children, with one also abused as an adult. The appellant had previously been convicted in 1993 of three offences of indecent assault and in May 2023 pleaded guilty to ten counts of sexual assault against his granddaughter.

The appellant’s prior conviction in 1993 resulted in a 12-month Probation Order. The 2023 conviction related to more serious offences against his granddaughter, committed between 2017 and 2019. The current appeal challenges the imposition of consecutive sentences, arguing the judge erred in failing to properly consider the earlier sentence and the principle of totality, rendering the consecutive sentence manifestly excessive.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to consider the effect of the earlier sentence imposed in 2023 when sentencing the appellant in December 2024.
2. Whether the imposition of consecutive sentences breached the principle of totality and was manifestly excessive.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The judge failed to adequately consider the effect of the sentence imposed in May 2023 when passing the consecutive sentence in December 2024.
• The total sentence of nine years and four months for all offending was manifestly excessive.
• Reliance was placed on the precedent set in R v Michael Green [2019] EWCA Crim 196, which emphasises the need to consider previous sentences for similar offences when imposing new sentences.

Prosecution's Arguments

• Prosecution counsel provided a sentencing note referring to the relevant sentencing guidelines and submitted that the judge should consider what sentence would have been imposed if all offending had been taken into account at the time of the 2023 sentencing.
• The prosecution alerted the court to the necessity of considering the totality principle and the effect of the previous sentence, but the judge did not specifically address this analysis.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Michael Green [2019] EWCA Crim 196	Sentencing judges must consider the impact of previous sentences when imposing new sentences for similar offences to avoid manifest excessiveness and ensure totality.	The court applied the principles from Green to assess whether the sentencing judge had properly considered the previous sentence and the totality principle; it found the judge had not, requiring the Court of Appeal to conduct the analysis itself.
R v McLean [2017] EWCA Crim 170	Warning against giving offenders undeserved credit by failing to consider previous sentences, which could amount to an "undeserved, uncovenanted bonus" contrary to public interest.	The court referenced this principle to caution against inappropriate credit for previous sentences and to guide the exercise of discretion regarding totality and previous sentences.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged that the sentencing judge applied the relevant sentencing guidelines and made reductions for guilty pleas and totality within the nine counts. However, the judge did not specifically consider the overall effect of the sentence already being served by the appellant from the 2023 conviction. Despite prosecution counsel highlighting this need, the judge failed to conduct the analysis required by the principles established in R v Michael Green.

The Court of Appeal therefore undertook the necessary exercise. It considered the timing of the sentences, the similarity of offences, the absence of temporal overlap, and the appellant’s conduct, including his failure to disclose the offences earlier. The court found the total sentence, if imposed at once, would have been nine years and four months.

The court noted the predatory and opportunistic nature of the offences, the abuse of trust, and the long-term psychological harm to the victims. It also considered the appellant’s advanced age, health condition, and the escalation in offending behavior over time.

After reviewing all factors, the court concluded that no further reduction was warranted for the separation of sentencing exercises and that the total sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Holding and Implications

The appeal against sentence is DISMISSED.

The court upheld the consecutive sentences imposed, finding that the total sentence for all offences over a 29-year period was appropriate and not manifestly excessive. This decision reinforces the necessity for sentencing judges to explicitly consider previous sentences and the totality principle but confirms that failure to do so does not automatically entitle an appellant to a reduction if the overall sentence is justified on analysis by the Court of Appeal. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles.