LG, R. v

A sentencing court may impose consecutive sentences for serial sexual offending against different victims, provided that it applies the totality principle. It must also give real weight to the offender’s youth at the time of the offences, even where the age difference made the offender appear adult to the victims.

An extended licence under section 236A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 requires proof that the offender was aged 18 or over when the qualifying offence was committed. Where the indictment covers a period spanning the offender’s eighteenth birthday and the evidence does not resolve the date, the appellate court should not impose a fresh extended-licence sentence.

The appellant was convicted at Lewes Crown Court, sitting at Hove, of 14 historic sexual offences against two child relatives. The offending included rape, indecent assault, indecency with a child and false imprisonment. It occurred when the victims were between about six and 11 years old and the appellant was aged between 13 and 19.

He received consecutive special custodial sentences totalling 24 years’ imprisonment, with two extended licence periods under section 236A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. He appealed on the grounds that the total sentence was excessive, insufficient allowance had been made for his youth and traumatic background, and the extended licence periods were unlawful because he had been under 18 when the rape offences were committed.

Leave was granted and the appeal was allowed in part. The court held that the judge was entitled to focus on the rape offences as the most serious part of a prolonged campaign of sexual offending. The judge could assess the offending by reference to Category 2 harm and Category B culpability in the relevant sentencing guideline. Consecutive sentences for the separate victims were also permissible, subject to totality.

1. The original terms did not properly reflect the appellant’s relative youth when the offences were committed. His ability to exert power over much younger victims did not remove the need to give weight to the fact that he was aged between 13 and 19 during the offending. A reduction from a total of 24 years to 18 years was therefore required.

2. The extended licence periods under section 236A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 were unlawful. Applying the helpful checklist in R v LF [2016] 2 Cr.App.R (S) 271, the relevant question was whether the offender had been aged 18 or over when the offence was committed. The rape offences accepted by the prosecution as supporting the extended licence periods had been committed before the appellant was 18.

3. The prosecution’s reliance on count 9 could not cure that defect. The indictment covered a period which straddled the appellant’s eighteenth birthday, the trial judge had not resolved the date of that offence, and the material before the court did not establish the age requirement with sufficient certainty. The court would not effectively re-sentence the appellant by imposing a new extended licence period on that basis.

4. The court quashed the 12-year sentences on counts 4, 5, 12, 13 and 14 and substituted nine years on counts 4 and 5, followed by a further nine years on counts 12, 13 and 14. It also quashed both extended licence periods. The resulting total term was 18 years’ imprisonment.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Granted leave and allowed the sentence appeal in part. It reduced the total custodial term from 24 to 18 years and quashed the extended licence periods.
• Lewes Crown Court, sitting at Hove On 20 March 2018, convicted the appellant of 14 historic sexual offences. On 9 April 2018, His Honour Judge Rennie imposed consecutive sentences totalling 24 years’ imprisonment with extended licence periods under section 236A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.