Collins, R v

A late or corrective arraignment does not render a criminal trial unsafe where the defendant has consistently denied guilt and no injustice has resulted. The timing of the plea is then not a matter of substantial importance.

For historic sexual offending, the sentencing court should apply current guidance while respecting the maximum penalties available when the offences were committed and considering all relevant aggravating and mitigating features.

The applicant renewed applications for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against convictions and a total sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment imposed in the Crown Court on 15 June 2017.

He had been convicted of 11 specimen counts of indecent assault and two counts of indecency with a child, arising from sexual abuse between 1975 and 1985. He challenged a reference to alleged computer images, the adequacy of his trial representation, and the timing of the arraignment. He also challenged sentence.

The central issues were whether any conviction ground disclosed an arguable injustice and whether the sentence was excessive.

1. Applications refused. Leave to appeal against conviction and sentence was refused, as was the application for an extension of time.

2. The complaint concerning alleged photographs of naked children had no merit. The computer evidence was raised by trial counsel on the applicant’s instructions to support an alleged motive for malicious allegations. Counsel established in evidence that there were no photographs of naked children and addressed the matter in closing submissions.

3. The general allegation of inadequate representation was unsupported. Trial counsel’s response showed conscientious preparation and effective work on the case. It disclosed no arguable deficiency.

4. The arraignment ground was a technical point without merit. Applying R v Williams 64 Cr App R 106, the court held that any uncertainty about an earlier arraignment had been cured by the later arraignment. In any event, the applicant had always maintained his innocence and suffered no injustice. The timing of the not-guilty plea was therefore not of substantial importance.

5. The sentencing judge had adopted the correct approach for historic offending. He applied current guidance while taking account of the maxima available at the time of offending and all relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances. A total of 10 years’ imprisonment for the sustained abuse of a child in breach of trust was not open to complaint.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed applications for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused.
• Crown Court: on 15 June 2017, the applicant was convicted of 11 counts of indecent assault and two counts of indecency with a child, and received a total sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.