Hicks v Regina

Where indecent assaults are genuinely separate from unlawful sexual intercourse, including because they occurred on different occasions before intercourse began, they must be sentenced on their own merits. The statutory maximum for the intercourse offences does not cap sentence for the separate assaults.

Sentence must nevertheless reflect the comparative seriousness of the conduct, the consensual character of the relationship where relevant, and proper credit for an early guilty plea. An extended sentence is justified where the ordinary licence period would not adequately protect the public or secure rehabilitation.

The appellant, a former police officer and church music director, pleaded guilty at Bristol Crown Court to three offences of sexual intercourse with a girl under 16 and one specimen count of indecent assault. The relationship began when the complainant was 13 and involved sexual activity from shortly after her 14th birthday.

The judge imposed concurrent sentences of 18 months for the intercourse offences and four years for indecent assault. Under section 85 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, he imposed an extended sentence of seven years, comprising four years’ custody and three years’ extended licence.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the four-year sentence and the extended licence period. The principal issues were whether the assaults had been sentenced separately from the intercourse offences, whether the custodial term was manifestly excessive, and whether the extended sentence remained justified.

1. Appeal allowed as to sentence. The court quashed the four-year sentence for the specimen count of indecent assault and substituted three years. The extended sentence was consequently reduced from seven years to six years, comprising three years’ custody and three years’ extended licence.

2. The indecent assaults were separate and distinct offences from the unlawful intercourse. They began months before intercourse and occurred on different days. Accordingly, they were properly sentenced on their own merits; the two-year maximum applicable to intercourse did not cap sentence for those assaults. The court applied the distinction stated in R v Cranshaw [2005] 1 Crim App R (8) 89. There was no improper double punishment for the intercourse, nor any misapplication of R v Figg [2004] 1 Cr App R (8) 409.

3. The offending remained grave. The complainant was a young and impressionable girl, and the appellant’s standing as a police officer and respected community member was capable of encouraging her participation, even though he did not meet her through either role. The court accepted, however, that this was not a classic grooming case but one of strong mutual infatuation.

4. Four years was manifestly excessive. It was more consistent with sentences for more serious offending against much younger children. Insufficient credit also appeared to have been given for guilty pleas entered at the earliest reasonable opportunity, particularly as a prosecution might not otherwise have proceeded. Those considerations, together with the essentially consensual relationship, justified a three-year sentence for indecent assault.

5. An extended sentence remained appropriate. The appellant’s conduct, including repeated contact with the complainant despite bail conditions, supported the conclusion that the ordinary licence period would not adequately prevent further offending or secure rehabilitation. The indefinite notification requirement under Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the indefinite disqualification from working with children remained in force.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In Hicks v Regina [2005] EWCA Crim 1944, the court allowed the sentence appeal, reduced the custodial element for indecent assault from four to three years, and thereby reduced the extended sentence from seven to six years.

• Crown Court at Bristol: His Honour Judge Ticehurst sentenced the appellant to concurrent terms including four years for indecent assault and imposed a seven-year extended sentence under section 85 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.