Turner, R v

For historic sexual offending, sentence is imposed under the law and relevant definitive guidelines current at the sentencing hearing, while remaining subject to the maximum penalty available when the offence was committed. The court must focus on the particular seriousness of the offending, the offender’s culpability, the harm caused, and any mitigation arising from the passage of time.

A man who assumes a stepfather’s role in a child’s home commits a serious breach of trust if he sexually assaults that child. Persistent sexual abuse, grave individual acts, enduring harm, and an absence of remorse may justify a substantial total sentence.

The appellant was convicted following a retrial of eight counts of indecent assault on a girl aged between 10 and 12. The offences comprised sustained sexual abuse over about two years, including repeated compelled masturbation, oral sex, digital penetration and ejaculation on the child.

At Bournemouth Crown Court, the judge imposed a total sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed with leave, contending that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the circumstances did not amount to an abuse of trust. The central issue was whether the total sentence was manifestly excessive for historic sexual offending.

1. Appeal dismissed. The total sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.
2. The court applied the historic-offence sentencing guidance in R v Hall & Ors [2010] EWCA 2753. Sentence is assessed at the date of sentence by measured reference to current definitive guidelines, but cannot exceed the maximum available when the offences were committed. The particular circumstances and seriousness of the offending remain the principal focus.
3. The appellant’s conduct involved a very serious breach of trust. By living in the family home and assuming the role of stepfather, he owed a high degree of trust and responsibility to the child. His sexual assaults upon her constituted a breach of that trust to a very high degree.
4. The court held that the sustained course of abuse, the child’s age and vulnerability, the serious acts of oral sex and digital penetration, and the resulting harm justified the sentence. The sentencing judge was especially well placed to assess harm, having seen the complainant give evidence twice. The appellant’s previous good character and lack of later convictions did not outweigh those features, particularly as he had made no admission, entered no guilty plea, and displayed no remorse.
5. The offences remained subject to the 10-year maximum under Sexual Offences Act 1956, section 14(1). The court’s reference to current guideline ranges did not displace that statutory maximum.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against sentence.
• Crown Court at Bournemouth: on 6 April 2011, imposed a total sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment for eight counts of indecent assault.