Factual and Procedural Background
Judge Cutts delivered the opinion. The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 restrictions on publication of matters likely to identify a victim applied to the matter.
On 5 August 2025, following a trial at the Crown Court at The City, the Appellant was convicted of seven counts of indecent assault contrary to section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. On 26 September the Appellant was sentenced to a total of 12 years' imprisonment composed as follows: counts 1–3 and 4–6 comprised multiple-incident counts with sentences of 18 months, 24 months and 4 years 6 months on respective groupings; counts 1–6 were made concurrent resulting in an effective term of 4 years 6 months for those counts; count 7 attracted 7 years 6 months and was ordered consecutive to the concurrent term, producing the 12-year total.
The offending comprised a course of conduct against the Victim (a niece by marriage) between 1985 and 1995 when she was aged between five and 15 years, occurring at the Appellant's home and the Victim's home. Count 7 involved partial oral insertion following the Appellant's masturbation in front of the Victim, who was 13 or 14 at that time.
The Victim's personal statement described long-standing psychological harm. The Appellant, aged 80, had no prior convictions; he continued to deny the offences and was assessed as medium risk of causing serious harm to children. The Recorder (who had tried the case) recognised good character, the age of the offences and medical conditions, and concluded no Sexual Harm Prevention Order was needed. The Appellant appealed with leave of the single judge against the total sentence.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the total sentence of 12 years' imprisonment was manifestly excessive, having regard to the principle of totality.
- Whether the sentence on count 7 (7 years 6 months) was excessive given that it was an isolated, brief incident involving partial penetration.
- Whether the Recorder gave sufficient weight to mitigation (Appellant's age, ill-health, good character, and the age of the offending).
- Whether an adjournment for a fresh medical report was appropriate to determine sentencing mitigation arising from the Appellant's present ill-health.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The total sentence was manifestly excessive because the Recorder failed properly to apply the principle of totality.
- The sentence on count 7 was too long given it was an isolated incident, did not involve full penetration, and was brief in nature.
- Insufficient weight was given to mitigation: the Appellant's advanced age, ill-health, dependent children, good character and the fact the offending occurred over 30 years ago.
- Attorney Bailey requested an adjournment to obtain a further medical report, given that the Appellant had suffered a stroke and his health had deteriorated since sentencing.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by noting the statutory anonymity protections under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992.
The court summarised the factual seriousness: a long-term grooming and course of sexual offending against a vulnerable child over a ten-year period, occurring in places where the Victim should have felt safe, and producing substantial and long-lasting psychological harm.
The Recorder's sentencing approach was described: he applied the modern equivalent sentencing guideline categories, recognised the Appellant's good character, age and medical conditions, and sought to achieve totality by making counts 1–6 concurrent and imposing count 7 consecutively because it was qualitatively different (involving penetration and planning).
The court addressed the Appellant's request to adjourn for a fresh medical report, accepting the Appellant had suffered a stroke but concluding that an adjournment to obtain material relating to events after sentence would not assist the court's function of determining whether the original sentence was manifestly excessive.
On the merits, the court rejected the grounds of appeal. It held that age and ill-health, while relevant, did not outweigh the gravity of the long-term offending. The court considered count 7 particularly serious (penetration after masturbation and forcing the Victim to kiss the Appellant's penis) and concluded that a sentence of seven-and-a-half years for that count was not manifestly excessive and would now be indictable as rape of a child under 13 or 14.
The court explained that totality had been properly considered by the Recorder (through concurrency of counts 1–6 and the overall sentencing exercise) and that, notwithstanding the Appellant's age and health, the aggregate 12-year sentence was not disproportionate.
The court noted an error by the Recorder regarding the maximum sentences applicable to counts 1–3 (the offending straddled different historical sentencing regimes: five years prior to 15 September 1985 and ten years thereafter). The court stated that the Recorder should have made findings as to when offending in each count occurred; no such findings were made, which benefited the Appellant. The court cited section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 as precluding the appellate court from adopting an approach that would result in a more severe outcome for the Appellant.
Finally, the court observed an apparent sentencing administration error: a victim surcharge was recorded in the sentencing remarks but should not have been imposed because the earliest offending pre-dated the victim surcharge provisions.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeal is DISMISSED. The court upheld the total sentence of 12 years' imprisonment.
Implications:
- The aggregate sentence imposed by the court below remains effective.
- The Recorder erred in stating the maximum sentence for counts 1–3 without making temporal findings; that error benefited the Appellant and the appellate court could not impose a harsher outcome due to section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.
- No victim surcharge should have been ordered because the earliest offending pre-dated the victim surcharge provisions.
- The decision does not establish a new legal precedent beyond its application to the facts; its immediate effect is to dismiss the Appellant's challenge to sentence and to correct the administrative point on the inappropriate victim surcharge.