B, R v

In a sentence appeal, the question is whether the overall sentence is manifestly excessive, not whether a shorter sentence could also properly have been imposed. A sentencing judge has discretion within the permissible range and may use the totality principle to ensure that the combined sentence reflects the full course of offending. Consecutive sentences for distinct victims may be proper where the overall term remains proportionate to the aggregate criminality. A victim surcharge order cannot stand where the offending does not all post-date the relevant commencement date.

The appellant was convicted by a jury at the Crown Court at Chester of sexual offences against two children to whom he stood in a position of trust and against an adult relative. The offending extended over almost 30 years.

The judge imposed an overall sentence of 22 years’ imprisonment. This comprised an extended sentence of 16 years for a specimen rape offence, consecutive terms totalling five years for offences against a second complainant, and a further consecutive year for an offence against the adult relative. The appellant accepted that the individual terms and the use of consecutive sentences were proper, but contended that the total was manifestly excessive.

1. The court dismissed the appeal against sentence. The overall term of 22 years’ imprisonment was well within the range open to the sentencing judge and was neither excessive nor manifestly excessive.

2. The governing appellate question was not whether an 18-year sentence, as the appellant submitted, might also have been appropriate. The law requires the appellant to establish that the sentence actually imposed was manifestly excessive. Sentencing permits a range of proper outcomes within which the judge has discretion.

3. The judge had correctly applied totality. He imposed concurrent terms for offences against each individual complainant, but consecutive sentences for the separate groups of offences. That approach properly reflected prolonged and systematic sexual abuse, serious breaches of trust, and the distinct harm caused to each complainant.

4. The court noted that the five-year term for assault by penetration against the appellant’s daughter would have been substantially longer if considered alone. Its moderation demonstrated, rather than undermined, the judge’s application of totality. The extended sentence for rape was imposed under section 236A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

5. The court nevertheless quashed the victim surcharge order because some of the offending pre-dated 1 October 2012.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed the appeal against the overall sentence, but quashed the victim surcharge order.
• Crown Court at Chester — following jury convictions, imposed an overall sentence of 22 years’ imprisonment on 11 June 2018.