Lam-Callinan, R v

For serial exposure offences, custody may be justified where the conduct is planned, persistent, directed at several victims, and involves an abuse of colleagues’ trust. The sentence must nevertheless reflect the offender’s total culpability, the applicable sentencing guidance and the statutory maximum.

A person may properly be regarded as a repeat offender because they commit a series of similar offences over time. Previous convictions may aggravate the position, but they are not a necessary condition of repeated offending.

The appellant, a learning mentor at a North London school, was convicted at Harrow Crown Court of seven offences of exposure contrary to section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The offences occurred over about 18 months and concerned seven adult colleagues. The jury rejected his denials and accounts of consensual conduct.

On 2 March 2009, Judge Levy imposed concurrent sentences of 15 months’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed against sentence with permission from the single judge. The principal issues were whether custody was justified, the significance of a sustained course of offending for the description of a repeat offender, and whether the total term was excessive.

1. The appeal was allowed to a limited extent. The court quashed the concurrent sentences of 15 months’ imprisonment and substituted concurrent sentences of nine months’ imprisonment.
2. The sentencing judge was entitled to find that the custody threshold had been crossed. The offences were serious examples of exposure. They were committed over a prolonged period against several colleagues, involved planning and persistence, caused distress, and abused workplace trust in a school setting. Although the offending was against adults and involved no allegation of misconduct towards pupils, that setting remained aggravating.
3. The court endorsed the judge’s assessment that the appellant had shown little appreciation of his conduct or acceptance of responsibility. The favourable testimonials and limited post-conviction acknowledgement did not demonstrate meaningful remorse.
4. The court explained R v Bell [2008] 2 Cr App R(S) 337 as deciding only that there was no indication that the offender in that case should be treated as a repeat offender. It did not establish that previous convictions are required before an offender who has committed a series of similar offences over a substantial period may be so described. In any event, repeated offending against different victims increases seriousness and the sentence must reflect total culpability.
5. Having regard to the sentencing guidance and the two-year maximum for exposure under section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, 15 months was too long despite the justified custodial sentence.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): in [2009] EWCA Crim 1316, allowed the sentence appeal to the extent of substituting concurrent terms of nine months’ imprisonment.
2. Crown Court at Harrow: on 26 January 2009 convicted the appellant of seven exposure offences; on 2 March 2009 Judge Levy imposed concurrent terms of 15 months’ imprisonment.