Stott, R v

For a dangerousness assessment, a court may give substantial weight to repeated serious sexual offending, offending while on bail, victims’ vulnerability, an apparent inability to control conduct, and the exploitation of younger victims. Youth, immaturity and the absence of previous sexual convictions do not preclude a finding of significant risk where reliable evidence supports it.

Consecutive sentences may be justified for repeated serious offending on bail, subject to totality. A sentence exceeding the statutory maximum is unlawful and must be corrected, even where the correction does not alter the overall extended sentence.

The appellant, aged 16 or 17 when he committed the offences, pleaded guilty to assault of a child under 13 by penetration and two offences of sexual activity with a child under Sexual Offences Act 2003. He also pleaded guilty to a lesser stalking offence.

On 13 January 2016, the sentencing court imposed an extended sentence of four years’ detention in a young offender institution and a four-year extended licence period. The appellant appealed against the finding of dangerousness and the length of the custodial term. The court also identified that the eight-month sentence for the stalking count exceeded the applicable six-month maximum.

1. Appeal allowed to a limited extent. The court upheld the extended sentence and varied only the sentence on the stalking count.
2. The sentencing judge was entitled to impose consecutive sentences for the three serious sexual offences. The repeat offending occurred while the appellant was on bail and involved planning, younger complainants and serious sexual conduct. The court held that, after proper allowance for youth, immaturity, guilty pleas and totality, the custodial terms could not be less than two years, 12 months and 12 months respectively for counts 2, 5 and 8.
3. The finding of dangerousness was properly open to the sentencing judge. The repeated offending against vulnerable young girls, the appellant’s apparent inability to control his conduct, and his willingness to exert influence over younger girls supported a significant risk of serious harm through further specified sexual offending. This conclusion remained justified even without the challenged parts of the pre-sentence reports.
4. The eight-month detention term on count 9 was unlawful because the maximum sentence for the lesser stalking offence was six months. The court quashed that term and substituted four months’ detention. That term was to run consecutively to counts 5 and 8, but concurrently with count 2. All other sentences remained unchanged, so the overall extended sentence remained four years’ detention and a four-year extended licence period.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — In [2017] EWCA Crim 370, the court allowed the appeal only to substitute a lawful four-month sentence on count 9.
• Sentencing court — On 13 January 2016, it imposed an extended sentence comprising four years’ detention in a young offender institution and a four-year extended licence period.