Hall, R v

On a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court must assess whether the total sentence adequately reflects the cumulative criminality. Repeated sexual assaults on children and young people, committed through an abuse of trust, may require a materially higher total sentence even where some individual offences would not independently justify custody.

A guilty plea remains mitigating, but serious post-offence conduct which compounds victims’ distress should be reflected in the sentence before the plea discount is applied. Victims’ views about the desired sentence do not determine the proper penalty, although the court must consider the harm caused to them.

The offender pleaded guilty at Preston Crown Court on 17 June 2013 to fourteen counts of historic indecent assault committed between 1967 and 1986. The thirteen victims were children or teenage girls. The offending involved the abuse of the trust generated by the offender’s public status, family friendships and apparent authority.

The Crown Court imposed concurrent sentences totalling 15 months’ imprisonment. The Attorney General sought leave to refer that total sentence as unduly lenient under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The central issue was whether the total sentence properly reflected the cumulative seriousness of the offences, their effects on the victims, and the relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

1. The reference was allowed. The total term of 15 months’ imprisonment was unduly lenient. It was increased to 30 months by directing that the 15-month sentence on count 15 should run consecutively to the concurrent sentences on the other counts.

2. The correct question was whether the total sentence sufficiently reflected the cumulative effect of the criminality. Although some assaults, viewed alone, did not cross the custody threshold, several did. The overall offending comprised repeated sexual assaults on young and vulnerable girls over 18 years. The offender exploited positions of trust arising from friendship, access to family homes, and his public standing.

3. The historic nature of the offending, the absence of later offending, age, infirmity, previous good character and positive acts were relevant mitigation. They did not neutralise the seriousness of the conduct. The offender’s successful career was not mitigation. It created the trust and apparent respectability which enabled the offending and deterred disclosure.

4. The offender’s public denials, made when he knew them to be false, were a serious aggravating feature. They attacked the complainants’ truthfulness and caused additional distress. The proper approach was to reflect that aggravation in assessing the appropriate sentence and then apply the proper discount for the eventual guilty pleas.

5. The court applied the principle in R v Nunn [1996] 2 Cr App R(S) 136. Victims’ views about whether a sentence should be increased could not determine the sentence. The court had to consider their suffering, but punishment could not vary according to whether individual victims felt mercy, indifference or vengeance.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — On an Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court granted leave and increased the total sentence from 15 to 30 months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Preston — On 17 June 2013, the offender pleaded guilty to fourteen counts of indecent assault and received concurrent sentences totalling 15 months’ imprisonment.