JB, R.

In sentencing multiple sexual assaults on children, the court must assess culpability, harm and aggravating features without double counting. Severe psychological harm may move an offence into the highest harm category. Psychological harm falling short of that level may nevertheless justify a sentence higher within the applicable range.

Where there are several offences and victims, the court may consider the aggregate sentence that separate offending would justify, then make proper reductions for totality and a guilty plea. An appellate court will not interfere merely because another judge might have imposed a somewhat lower sentence; the overall sentence must be manifestly excessive.

The applicant pleaded guilty, on the first day of trial, to five counts of sexual assault on children under 13, contrary to section 7 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The complainants were his three step-granddaughters. The offences included repeated genital touching of two children and single incidents involving the third.

His Honour Judge Evans, sitting at Taunton Crown Court on 22 September 2017, imposed a total sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment. The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal against sentence. The central issue was whether that total was manifestly excessive.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The total sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment, although severe, was not manifestly excessive.
2. The offences fell within category 2A of the Sexual Offences Guideline. Planning and abuse of trust placed culpability in category A. The relevant single-offence starting point was four years’ custody, with a three-to-seven-year range.
3. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat the applicant’s threat that a victim would not be believed and would be hated by her family as aggravating. He was also entitled to give substantial weight to the psychological harm to the children and the wider damage caused to their family. The court cautioned, however, that the location of offending in the grandparents’ home should not result in double counting of the abuse-of-trust feature.
4. Severe psychological harm may move an offence from harm category 2 to category 1. Harm below that threshold may still materially affect the sentence within the relevant range.
5. Each child’s offending justified a sentence above the four-year starting point. The judge’s indicative aggregate of about 16 years before reductions was open to him. He then reduced the sentence for totality and the 10 per cent credit appropriate to the late guilty pleas, resulting in 11 years.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for leave to appeal against the sentence refused: [2017] EWCA Crim 2494.
• Crown Court at Taunton: His Honour Judge Evans imposed a total sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment on 22 September 2017.