Brooks, R. v

Where separate sexual offences against young and vulnerable complainants have caused significant harm, immediate custody may be unavoidable despite exceptional good character, remorse and severe personal consequences.

Consecutive sentences may properly reflect offences committed on different occasions against different victims. However, the totality principle requires the appellate court to ensure that the aggregate term remains proportionate. In applying totality, the court may give material weight to the exceptional collateral consequences of offending and order a sentence to run concurrently where the overall term is excessive.

The appellant, a doctor of previous good character, pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Preston to three sexual assaults against young girls and to intimidation of a witness. The offences occurred on separate occasions in November 2016. The intimidation took place while he was on police bail.

On 7 April 2017, the Crown Court imposed consecutive terms totalling 28 months’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed against both the length of the sentence and the refusal to suspend it. The central issues were whether immediate custody was required and whether the total sentence properly reflected totality.

1. The appeal was allowed to a limited extent. The total sentence was reduced from 28 months to 22 months’ imprisonment.

2. Immediate imprisonment was unavoidable. The offences were serious, were committed against girls who were vulnerable because of their age, and caused significant harm. The appellant’s exceptional good character, genuine remorse, personal stresses and the grave consequences for his career and private life did not justify suspending the sentence.

3. Consecutive sentences were not wrong in principle. The offences were committed on different occasions and involved different complainants. The court nevertheless held that greater weight should have been given to the principle of totality and to the severe long-term consequences which the appellant had brought upon himself.

4. The court quashed the order that the six-month sentence for count 2 should be consecutive. It directed that sentence to run concurrently with the 12-month sentence for count 3. No further alteration was justified.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — allowed the sentence appeal to a limited extent and reduced the total term to 22 months’ imprisonment: [2017] EWCA Crim 1276.
• Crown Court at Preston — on 7 April 2017 imposed consecutive sentences totalling 28 months’ imprisonment following guilty pleas.