IAG, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns the sentencing of an offender for sexual offences committed against his young daughter, referred to as "V", who is entitled to lifelong statutory protection under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 to prevent identification as a victim. The offender was tried in the Crown Court at Wood Green before Judge Greenberg KC and a jury on ten charges related to offences committed in November 2019 when V was nearly seven years old. The jury convicted the offender on three counts involving sexual assault and penetration but could not reach verdicts on the remaining counts, which were ordered to lie on the file.

The offender was sentenced on counts 1 to 3 to two-year community orders with a rehabilitation activity requirement and was subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order and a Restraining Order. The Solicitor General considered the sentence unduly lenient and applied for leave to refer the case to this court for review under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

The offender, aged 45 with no prior convictions, has a history of mental health problems, including schizoaffective disorder, manic type. At the time of the offences, he was undergoing a severe manic episode. He and V's mother had separated when V was around four years old, but V maintained regular contact with him. The offences occurred during a visit to a church when the offender became angry and sexually assaulted V in a bathroom. V disclosed the offences in May 2024, leading to the offender's arrest while he was about to be discharged from inpatient mental health treatment.

The offender pleaded not guilty and denied the offences despite his convictions. Sentencing was adjourned to allow reports to be prepared, including a psychiatric report from Dr Bose and a pre-sentence report. The sentencing process involved complications, including an initial imposition of suspended custodial sentences that were later varied to community orders due to a failure to consider relevant case law concerning suspension of custodial sentences under section 278 of the Sentencing Code.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentence imposed on the offender was unduly lenient and failed to reflect the overall criminality of the offences.
2. Whether the judge properly applied sentencing guidelines and the impact of the offender’s mental disorder on culpability and sentencing.
3. Whether the imposition of suspended custodial sentences was lawful given the special custodial sentence provisions under section 278 of the Sentencing Code.

Arguments of the Parties

Solicitor General's Arguments

• The total sentence was unduly lenient and did not appropriately reflect the offender’s overall criminality.
• The judge was entitled to reduce the sentence to reflect mental disorder but made excessive reductions, resulting in a sentence below the bottom of the relevant sentencing range.
• Proper application of the Imposition guideline required immediate imprisonment in this case.
• No hospital order was considered, and a mental health treatment requirement was unavailable, limiting community order equivalence.
• Section 236A of the Sentencing Code would have extended the licence period if a custodial sentence had been imposed, allowing better rehabilitation support.

Offender's Arguments

• The judge properly took into account all evidence, including the offender’s mental illness and reduced culpability.
• The judge was constrained by sentencing powers and had the advantage of hearing all trial evidence and assessing the offender’s conduct and mental state.
• The sentence reflected the offender’s substantially reduced culpability due to mental ill-health and was a reasonable alternative to immediate imprisonment.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recognized the complexity of sentencing in this case, acknowledging the seriousness of the offences and the impact on V. It accepted the expert psychiatric evidence that the offender was suffering a severe mental disorder at the time, which greatly reduced his culpability and made it unlikely he would have committed the offences if mentally well.

The court emphasized the importance of the judge having heard all trial evidence and assessed the offender personally, including his insight into his condition and compliance with medication. The judge also considered the significant time spent in custody on remand and under curfew.

The court found the judge was justified in imposing community orders rather than immediate imprisonment, as they offered better prospects for rehabilitation while preserving the court’s power to impose a custodial sentence if the orders were breached. The court rejected the submission that the judge’s conclusions were unreasonable or not open to her.

The court granted leave to refer the case due to the important points raised but ultimately refused the application to increase the sentence, holding that while lenient, it was not unduly so.

Holding and Implications

The court's final decision was to REFUSE THE APPLICATION for review of sentence, thereby upholding the community orders originally imposed (as varied) on 31 March 2025.

The direct effect is that the offender’s sentence remains as imposed, with no immediate custodial term. The court did not set new precedent beyond reaffirming the application of existing sentencing principles, particularly regarding mental disorder’s impact on culpability and the limited circumstances in which special custodial sentences may be suspended.