Perkins & Ors v R.

Victim personal statements and family impact statements enable the sentencing court to assess the proved personal impact of offending. They are evidence, must be properly prepared and served in time, and may be challenged. They do not permit victims or their families to influence the type or level of sentence.

On an appeal, an updated statement may exceptionally be admitted where necessary to understand the continuing impact of the crime. The appeal must nevertheless be resolved by ordinary sentencing principles, irrespective of the victim’s views on the outcome. A variation under Power of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, s.155, is a further hearing in the original proceedings and must be properly listed.

Three appeals were heard together because they raised questions about the use of victim personal statements and, in homicide cases, family impact statements.

• Perkins: appealed a total sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment for historic sexual offences against three sisters, imposed after a variation under s.155.
• Bennett: appealed a total sentence of nine years’ imprisonment for rapes, kidnapping and assault by penetration committed against one victim.
• Hall: appealed his conviction for aggravated burglary, relying on wording in a victim personal statement made after the trial.

The common issues concerned the evidential status, proper service and permissible use of victim statements at sentence and on appeal.

1. Victim statements. The court dismissed the sentence appeals and the conviction appeal, save that it quashed the sexual offences prevention order made against Perkins. Victim personal statements and family impact statements provide evidence of the harm caused by the offence. Their purpose is to assist the sentencing court’s assessment under s.143 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, not to invite the victim to advocate a sentence. A victim’s opinion about sentence must be ignored.

2. The statement is evidence and must be treated accordingly. It must be in proper evidential form, served in sufficient time for instructions and any objection, and presented by the prosecution as admissible evidence. It may be challenged in cross-examination and may trigger disclosure obligations. Late service, as in Perkins, was wrong in principle and had to cease.

3. At a sentencing appeal, a statement not before the sentencing court will seldom be appropriate. An updated statement may exceptionally be received where needed to explain a continuing or newly established impact. Its purpose remains confined to impact. Neither its presence nor the victim’s view can determine whether a sentence is excessive or wrong in principle. It will be rare, but sometimes appropriate, for a victim to read a properly prepared and served statement in the Court of Appeal.

4. A s.155 variation is a further hearing in the original case. It must be properly listed so that the defendant, victims, public and media can attend if they wish. The informal listing of Perkins’s variation hearing was improper, although it did not make his sentence excessive. His 12-year sentence was not manifestly excessive. Bennett’s nine-year sentence, though at the high end of the proper range, was also not excessive.

5. Hall’s post-conviction statement was capable in principle of being considered as fresh evidence if it were truly inconsistent and relevant to the safety of the conviction. Properly read, it did not contradict the complainant’s trial evidence or suggest that he had recognised Hall during the attack. There was ample other evidence; the conviction was safe.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the three appeals in [2013] EWCA Crim 323, except for quashing Perkins’s sexual offences prevention order.
• Bradford Crown Court: Perkins pleaded guilty to historic sexual offences. His sentence was varied under s.155 of the Power of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 to 12 years’ imprisonment.
• Chelmsford Crown Court: Bennett pleaded guilty and received a total sentence of nine years’ imprisonment.
• Peterborough Crown Court sitting at Huntingdon: Hall was convicted by a jury of aggravated burglary and sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment.