Taylor, R v

For historic sexual offending, a sentencing court may use the current definitive guideline for the modern equivalent offence, but must make a measured adjustment for any lower maximum sentence applicable at the time of the offence. The sentence must nevertheless reflect the full seriousness and totality of repeated predatory offending. Concurrent terms may be appropriate, but they must adequately mark separate offences committed on different occasions.

Personal mitigation, including the effect of imprisonment on a dependent partner, may be substantial. It cannot reduce the sentence below the proper minimum where it fails to reflect the victim’s vulnerability, the repetition of the offending and its serious psychological consequences.

The Attorney General referred concurrent sentences of 12 months’ imprisonment as allegedly unduly lenient. The offender had been convicted after trial of two historic indecent assaults on a boy aged between 10 and 12, contrary to section 15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956.

The assaults occurred on separate occasions while the boy was asleep during overnight stays at the offender’s home. The Recorder treated the modern equivalent as sexual assault of a child under 13 under section 7 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, but reduced the sentence to reflect the older statutory maximum and personal mitigation, including the effect of custody on the offender’s disabled husband.

The central issue was whether the resulting concurrent 12-month terms were unduly lenient.

1. The reference was granted. The concurrent terms of 12 months’ imprisonment were unduly lenient. The court substituted concurrent terms of 30 months’ imprisonment on the two counts.
2. The Recorder was entitled, having presided over the trial, to assess whether and to what extent the circumstances amounted to an abuse of trust. The court accepted that the trust element was limited because the offender was not in a particular relationship of trust with the child.
3. It was appropriate to have measured reference to the modern guideline for an offence under section 7 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The historic offences under section 15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 carried a lower maximum sentence. That required an adjustment, but did not justify a sentence that failed to reflect the offending’s seriousness.
4. The appropriate modern-guideline assessment was towards the top of category 2B or the bottom of category 2A. Material mitigation included the offender’s age, the long period since his last offending, testimonials and the particular impact of imprisonment on his disabled husband.
5. Those factors were outweighed by the fact that there were two offences, separated in time, against a sleeping child who was entitled to feel safe. The conduct was repeated and predatory, rather than a single aberration, and had serious psychological consequences for the victim. Concurrent sentences could properly be imposed, but the overall term had to reflect both offences.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)—On the Attorney General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the court granted leave and substituted concurrent terms of 30 months’ imprisonment.
• Crown Court at Liverpool—On 25 May 2018, the Recorder imposed concurrent terms of 12 months’ imprisonment for two counts of indecent assault.