Maunders, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from convictions for multiple non-recent sexual offences committed by the Appellant during his early teenage years against two complainants, referred to as C1 and C2. The offences included indecent assault and buggery, committed between 1986 and 1988. The Appellant was convicted in 2021 at Cardiff Crown Court and sentenced to various custodial terms including an extended sentence on one count of buggery. The extended sentence was later identified as unlawful. The appeal was referred to the Court by the Registrar, and an extension of time to appeal was granted. The appeal challenges the legality and proportionality of the sentences imposed, particularly focusing on the extended sentence and the appropriateness of custodial terms given the Appellant’s age at the time of the offences.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether an extended sentence was lawfully imposed for the offence of buggery contrary to section 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, given it is not a specified offence under the Sentencing Act 2020 Schedule 18.
2. Whether the custodial sentences imposed for counts of indecent assault on a male were excessive, considering the maximum sentences available at the time for a young offender aged 14 or 15.
3. Whether the sentencing judge appropriately applied current sentencing guidelines and principles concerning offences committed by children and young persons, including the consideration of dangerousness and the totality of sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The extended sentence imposed for buggery was unlawful as the offence is not listed as a specified offence under Schedule 18 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
• The sentences for indecent assault exceeded the maximum custodial periods available to the Appellant as a child offender, with no good reason justifying the excess.
• The dangerousness finding should not lead to an extended sentence where statutory conditions are not met.

Respondent's Arguments

• Conceded that the extended sentence on the buggery count was unlawful.
• Agreed that the sentences for indecent assault exceeded those available for a child offender at the time.
• Supported the judge’s finding of dangerousness and the gravity of the offences but accepted the legal limitations on sentencing.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by applying the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 to ensure anonymity of the complainants. It then addressed the unlawfulness of the extended sentence imposed on the buggery count, noting that buggery is not a specified offence under Schedule 18 of the Sentencing Act 2020, a prerequisite for extended sentences. The Court analysed the statutory conditions for extended sentences and concluded that neither the earlier offence condition nor the 4-year custodial term condition for other counts was met.

The Court further examined the sentencing limits applicable to the Appellant as a young offender, referencing the Sentencing Children and Young People Guideline and the recent authoritative decision in R v Ahmed. The Court emphasized that the sentencing starting point should be the maximum sentence available at the time the offence was committed, and that exceeding this requires good reason, which was not demonstrated.

The Court acknowledged the judge’s findings on dangerousness and the gravity of the offences but held that these could not justify unlawful extended sentencing. The Court carefully recalibrated the sentences to reflect legal limits, substituting the extended sentence with a determinate sentence consistent with the maximum available at the time of offending.

Holding and Implications

The Court ALLOWED the appeal on the basis that the extended sentence imposed on the buggery offence was unlawful and that the sentences for indecent assault exceeded the maximum available for a young offender without good reason. The sentences on counts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 were quashed and replaced with lawful determinate sentences reflecting the gravity of the offences and the aggravating factors.

The total effective sentence was reduced to 7 years and 6 months' custody. The Court did not criticize the judge’s dangerousness finding but clarified that sentencing must comply with statutory requirements and sentencing guidelines applicable to offences committed by children and young persons.

No new legal precedent was established; rather, the decision reaffirmed the application of existing sentencing principles and statutory conditions for extended sentences.