CB, R v

When sentencing historic sexual offences, the court should begin with the sentence that would have been appropriate if the offences had been reported when committed. The assessment must, however, reflect the full period of offending and the offender’s age throughout it.

Consecutive sentences may be justified for serious and persistent offences against separate young victims. The total sentence must nevertheless satisfy the totality principle. Where the individual terms are moderately too long, an otherwise justified consecutive structure may produce an excessive overall sentence.

CB was convicted after trial of two counts of indecent assault and four counts of indecency with a child, committed between 1986 and 1993 against two young girls. The offences were reported in 2001. He received a total sentence of nine years’ imprisonment, comprising consecutive terms of four and five years for the indecent assaults.

He appealed against sentence. He submitted, by reference to a line of authorities including R v Bowers [1999] 2 Cr App R (S) 9, that sentence should be assessed from the penalty that would have been imposed had the offences been reported at the time. The central issue was whether the nine-year total was excessive.

1. Appeal allowed to the extent of sentence. The court quashed the total sentence of nine years’ imprisonment and substituted a total of seven years.

2. The court accepted in principle that, for historic offending, sentencing should start with the sentence that would have been imposed if the offences had been reported when committed. The relevant period was the whole period of offending, from 1986 to 1992, rather than only the years when CB was at the youngest end of that period.

3. CB was a young adult throughout, but the offences persisted for six years. The court considered that the sentence imposed when he was a young adult would not have differed greatly from that imposed when he was aged 34.

4. The offending was serious and persistent, involved very young girls, and caused serious and lasting harm. CB had not pleaded guilty and had thereby not spared the complainants the anxiety and stress of a trial. Consecutive sentences were therefore clearly justified.

5. Nevertheless, each principal term was moderately too long and the nine-year aggregate was excessive under the totality principle. The substituted sentence comprised three years for the indecent assault on N and four years’ imprisonment consecutively for the indecent assault on S.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence to the limited extent of quashing the nine-year total and substituting seven years’ imprisonment.

• Crown Court: Following trial, CB was convicted on 30 May 2002 of two offences of indecent assault and four offences of indecency with a child, and was sentenced to a total of nine years’ imprisonment.