SC, R. v

In reviewing a custodial sentence for sexual activity with a child, the sentencing court must give discernible weight to a late guilty plea and to material personal mitigation, including youth and previous good character. A late plea may still have real mitigating value where it spares the child complainant from giving evidence.

The Court of Appeal may reduce a sentence where the judge recognised those matters but it is unclear how they affected the final term. The collateral effect of the term imposed, including the duration of sexual-offender notification requirements, may properly inform the assessment of a just sentence.

The appellant, aged 19 at the date of the offence, pleaded guilty at Liverpool Crown Court to sexual activity with a child aged 14. He had digitally penetrated the complainant when she was very drunk, vulnerable and separated from her friends. The sentencing judge placed the offence in the highest category under the applicable Sentencing Guidelines Council guidance, with a starting point of four years and a range of three to seven years, and imposed three years and six months’ detention in a young offender institution.

By leave of the single judge, the appellant challenged the sentence’s length. He relied on credit for his guilty plea, his youth, good character and personal circumstances. The central issue was whether those matters, and the consequential notification requirements, justified reducing the custodial term.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The sentence of three years and six months’ detention in a young offender institution was reduced to two years and four months.

2. The offending was grave. The complainant was 14, very drunk, alone and vulnerable; the appellant was a stranger to her and had digitally penetrated her. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat the offence as falling within the highest category of the relevant Sentencing Guidelines Council guidance, for which the starting point was four years’ custody and the range was three to seven years.

3. However, the Court considered that the mitigation had not been sufficiently and transparently reflected in the sentence. Although the guilty plea came late and followed an attempt to vacate it, it meant that the complainant did not have to attend court. The appellant was also young and of good character. The Court could not tell whether, apart from credit for the plea, the judge had given proper effect to those personal mitigating features.

4. The Court also took account of the consequence that a term of 30 months or more would require lifelong notification on the sexual offenders register. A term of two years and four months would require notification until the appellant was about 28 or 29. In the circumstances, the Court considered that a decade of notification was sufficient and that this reduction met the interests of justice.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal to a limited extent and reduced the term of detention.
• Crown Court at Liverpool: Following a guilty plea, imposed three years and six months’ detention in a young offender institution, with consequential orders.