GO, R v

A psychiatric disorder which may have contributed to sexual offending does not, by itself, explain or excuse the offending, nor reduce its impact upon a vulnerable victim. In assessing sentence, the court may give substantial weight to exploitation of vulnerability, preventing the victim from leaving and attempts to deter disclosure.

Where a sentence lies at the top of the relevant sentencing bracket, an appellate court may reduce it if there is force in the complaint of excess, while preserving an immediate custodial sentence that properly reflects the seriousness of the offending.

The appellant, GO, was convicted at Southampton Crown Court of causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent and sexual assault. Both he and the 23-year-old complainant were psychiatric patients when the offences occurred. The complainant was particularly vulnerable. The appellant forced her hand onto his penis, sexually assaulted her, obstructed her attempts to leave and told her not to report what had happened.

He received concurrent sentences of two years’ imprisonment. On his appeal against sentence, he contended that the terms were at the top of the sentencing bracket and that insufficient weight had been given to his bipolar affective disorder.

Disposition

1. The appeal against sentence was allowed to a limited extent. The court quashed the concurrent sentences of two years’ imprisonment and substituted concurrent terms of 18 months’ imprisonment.

2. The appellant’s bipolar affective disorder was accepted as a condition which might have contributed to the index offences. It did not, of itself, explain or excuse either offence. Nor did it lessen their effect upon this complainant.

3. An immediate custodial sentence was plainly warranted. The complainant was particularly vulnerable, and the appellant took advantage of her vulnerability. The seriousness was reinforced by his twice obstructing her exit and by his instruction that she should not tell anyone what had occurred. Those features were consistent with the assessed propensity to use threats to meet his needs and with relevant previous convictions.

4. The court accepted that two years’ imprisonment on each count was at the top of the applicable sentencing bracket. There was force in the submission that the terms were excessive. A reduction to 18 months on each count, to run concurrently, properly reflected that conclusion while maintaining sentences commensurate with the offending and its impact.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): the appeal against sentence was allowed to the extent that the concurrent two-year terms were reduced to concurrent terms of 18 months’ imprisonment: [2010] EWCA Crim 1538.

• Southampton Crown Court: on 23 November 2009, GO was convicted of causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent and sexual assault. On 18 December 2009, Judge Jarvis imposed concurrent sentences of two years’ imprisonment.