Perry, R. v

An appellate court will not interfere with a custodial sentence merely because substantial personal mitigation is present. The sentencing assessment must also reflect the number and ages of the victims, the offender’s knowledge that the conduct was wrong, and offending committed while on police bail. Intellectual and emotional immaturity may mitigate sentence, but does not make an otherwise appropriate sentence excessive where the offender understood the wrongdoing and the overall seriousness remains high.

The appellant, aged 21 at sentence, pleaded guilty at Exeter Crown Court to five counts of sexual activity with a child. The offences involved three girls aged 13 or 14. He received concurrent sentences of four and a half years’ imprisonment, with time spent on remand directed to count.

He appealed on sentence. He relied on an early plea, a troubled background, intellectual impairment, emotional immaturity and reports suggesting a low risk of repetition. The Crown relied on the number of victims, their ages, his lies in interview, and further offending while on police bail.

The issue was whether the total sentence was excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. Although leave was granted, the sentence of four and a half years’ detention, concurrent on all counts, was not excessive and the court would not interfere.

2. The sentencing judge had approached sentence carefully. He correctly identified and balanced the aggravating and mitigating features, considered the pre-sentence and psychological reports, and was entitled to take account of the possibility that consecutive sentences could have been imposed for the separate complainants.

3. The appellant’s troubled background, significant intellectual impairment and emotional immaturity were substantial mitigating matters. They did not outweigh the seriousness of five offences involving three separate victims, each substantially younger than the appellant.

4. The court attached weight to the appellant’s knowledge that his conduct was wrong. His lies during interview supported that conclusion. Further offending while he was on police bail was a particularly serious aggravating feature.

5. The apparent consent of the complainants did not remove the potential harm to young girls from this conduct. That harm was relevant to the seriousness of the statutory offences. Taken as a whole, the sentence could not properly be criticised as excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2010] EWCA Crim 508, leave to appeal was granted but the appeal against sentence was dismissed.
• Exeter Crown Court: On 23 September 2009, following guilty pleas to five counts of sexual activity with a child, the appellant received concurrent sentences of four and a half years’ imprisonment.