Attorney General's Reference No 53 of 2004

Sentencing for sustained sexual abuse of children must reflect the victims’ ages and number, the nature and frequency of the misconduct, any breach of trust, the impact on the victims, and systematic grooming. Contemporary sentencing treats such offending more severely than in the past. Less weight is generally given to the offender’s age, the age of the offences, and previous good character.

Where a sentence materially fails to reflect grave, repeated abuse of several young victims, it may be unduly lenient. On an Attorney General’s reference, the substituted sentence must nevertheless allow for the offender’s double jeopardy.

The Attorney General referred a sentence imposed at Carlisle Crown Court as allegedly unduly lenient. The offender had pleaded guilty to 45 counts of indecent assault contrary to section 15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956.

The offending comprised repeated sexual abuse of three boys, each beginning when he was eight and continuing for about five years. The offender was trusted by their families. He groomed the boys with presents and threats, and the abuse had grave long-term consequences for them.

The Crown Court imposed concurrent terms of five years’ imprisonment, with an extended licence arrangement and ancillary protective orders. The central issue was whether that total term was unduly lenient and, if so, what sentence should replace it.

Disposition

1. The court granted leave, allowed the Attorney General’s reference, and held that concurrent sentences of five years’ imprisonment were unduly lenient.

2. In sentencing sustained child sexual abuse, the court must assess the victims’ ages and number, the nature and frequency of the sexual misconduct, and any breach of trust. The impact on the victims and systematic grooming are also important. Here, all of those factors were grave: the offender abused three very young victims frequently over prolonged periods, after exploiting the trust placed in him and grooming them by inducements and threats.

3. The court accepted the guidance from R v Burton-Barri [1999] 2 Cr App R (S) 253 and recent Attorney General’s references. It emphasised that contemporary sentencing regards sexual abuse of children more severely than formerly, and attaches less weight to age, the staleness of the offending, and previous good character. The guilty pleas remained important because they spared the victims from giving evidence, but the offender’s lack of appreciation of the harm caused reduced the force of mitigation.

4. Comparable cases confirmed that the Crown Court’s total sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of this offending. The court held that the proper sentence at first instance could not have been below seven years’ imprisonment. Giving the offender credit for double jeopardy on an Attorney General’s reference, it quashed the five-year terms and substituted concurrent terms of six years’ imprisonment. The licence requirement under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 and the other orders made below remained in force.

This was an Attorney General’s reference concerning sentence, rather than an appeal by the offender.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): allowed the reference and substituted concurrent sentences of six years’ imprisonment: [2004] EWCA Crim 1831.

• Carlisle Crown Court: on 13 April 2004, imposed concurrent sentences of five years’ imprisonment for 45 indecent assaults, together with licence and ancillary protective orders.