Howeson, R v

A summing up is assessed as a whole. It should identify the issues, give the relevant legal directions and provide an appropriate summary of the evidence. A lengthy and unstructured recital of evidence may make the jury’s task harder, but it does not render convictions unsafe unless it deflected the jury from a fair consideration of the real issues.

On sentence, an appellate court asks whether the aggregate sentence for the aggregate offending is manifestly excessive. Serious and sustained misuse of a position of authority may substantially reduce the mitigating force of otherwise positive good character.

The appellant was convicted at Bristol Crown Court of ten historical indecent assaults contrary to Sexual Offences Act 1956, section 15(1). The offences concerned eight young men and occurred in three settings in which the appellant held a position of authority. He received an aggregate sentence of seven and a half years’ imprisonment. A retrial on two further counts resulted in acquittals.

He appealed against conviction on the basis that the four-day summing up was excessively long, muddled and unfairly favourable to the prosecution. He also sought to appeal against sentence, contending that the aggregate term was manifestly excessive given the nature of the assaults and his personal mitigation.

1. Appeal dismissed. Although the judge’s summing up fell short of the optimal standard, it did not render the convictions unsafe. A proper summing up should identify the issues, give the relevant directions and summarise the evidence relevant to those issues. The lengthy recitation of evidence over four days made the jury’s task more difficult than necessary.

2. The court nevertheless considered the summing up as a whole. The issues were clear: the prosecution alleged deliberate sexual assaults and the appellant’s primary case was that the allegations had been invented. The judge gave appropriate legal directions and fully set out the appellant’s evidence on each count. The form and order of the evidence review, and certain comments which could have been more balanced or better phrased, did not deflect the jury from fairly deciding the issues.

3. The court rejected the contention that the good-character direction was substantially undermined by the direction concerning one complainant’s previous convictions. The appellant’s good character was properly and adequately placed before the jury.

4. The convictions were safe. The evidence disclosed a course of similar conduct over more than ten years, involving complainants over whom the appellant held a dominant position. There was no evidence of cross-contamination between the distinct groups of complainants.

5. Permission to appeal against sentence was formally granted, but the sentence appeal was dismissed. The maximum for an offence under section 15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 was ten years. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat the appellant’s misuse of authority over vulnerable young men as seriously aggravating and as diminishing the weight of his good character. His medical conditions could be managed in prison. The aggregate term of seven and a half years, though stiff, was not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed.
• Crown Court at Bristol: On 22 December 2017, the appellant was convicted of ten counts of indecent assault. On 22 June 2018, he was sentenced to an aggregate term of seven and a half years’ imprisonment. A retrial on two further counts resulted in acquittals.