Attorney General's Reference No. 110 OF 2006

On an Attorney General’s reference, a finding that a sentence is unduly lenient does not automatically require an increase. The court must separately decide whether an increase is appropriate, taking account of the double jeopardy principle.

Repeated sexual assaults by a stepfather on young stepdaughters, committed over years from a position of trust and including digital penetration, were of grave seriousness. Personal mitigation, health difficulties and good character did not prevent the original two-year sentence from being unduly lenient. A substituted sentence of three years’ imprisonment was appropriate.

The Attorney General referred the sentence imposed at the Crown Court at Bristol on an offender convicted after trial of 18 counts of indecent assault on his two stepdaughters. The offending occurred repeatedly between 1994 and 1999, when the girls were children. The jury did not reach verdicts on further counts of rape and indecency with a child.

On 7 October 2005, the Crown Court imposed two years’ imprisonment, a five-year extension to the licence period, and lifelong notification requirements. The central issue was whether the custodial sentence was unduly lenient and, if so, whether it should be increased.

1. The Attorney General’s reference was allowed. The two-year custodial sentence was unduly lenient and was replaced by a sentence of three years’ imprisonment.
2. The offences were exceptionally serious. The offender was the girls’ stepfather and occupied a position of trust and authority. He committed repeated assaults over a lengthy period, beginning when the victims were aged eight and 10. The conduct included touching beneath clothing and digital penetration.
3. The court took account of the offender’s previous good character, psychiatric and serious cardiac difficulties, and the support available from his wife and friends. It also noted the uncertainty surrounding the risk assessment. Those matters did not outweigh the aggravating features. The absence of a guilty plea attracted no sentencing discount.
4. The court considered that an appropriate sentencing range was about four years’ imprisonment. It then applied the separate question arising after a finding of undue leniency: whether it was appropriate to increase the sentence. The double jeopardy principle was relevant, but provided no reason not to increase the sentence in this case. A three-year sentence was therefore appropriate.
5. The court also corrected the extension-period order so that it applied to the specific count giving rise to the power. The lifelong notification period remained unchanged.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On the Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court held the sentence unduly lenient and increased it to three years’ imprisonment: [2006] EWCA Crim 259.
• Crown Court at Bristol — Following conviction on 18 counts of indecent assault, imposed two years’ imprisonment, a five-year licence extension and lifelong notification requirements on 7 October 2005.