Seamark, Re

An appellate court will not interfere with an extended sentence where the sentencing judge was entitled, on the offending and risk evidence, to find a significant risk of further specified offences causing serious harm. Continuing sexual offending while awaiting sentence for similar offending may strongly support that conclusion, despite protective orders and notification requirements.

Credit for a guilty plea is a discretionary sentencing decision. A severe overall sentence will not be varied unless it is manifestly excessive. Consecutive custodial terms may properly reflect further offending committed while on bail, provided the sentencing judge has applied the relevant guideline and the principle of totality.

The appellant pleaded guilty to sexual offences against two boys aged under 13. The first group concerned repeated sexual conduct against a seven-year-old. After indicating guilty pleas to those offences, the appellant committed two further sexual assaults against a five-year-old while on bail.

At Cambridge Crown Court, the judge imposed an extended sentence of eight years for the principal offences, comprising five years’ custody and a three-year extended licence. Concurrent two-year sentences for the later offences were made consecutive in effect to the custodial term. A sexual harm prevention order was also contemplated.

The appellant challenged the finding of dangerousness, the credit for his pleas, and the overall length and totality of the sentence.

1. Appeal dismissed. The extended sentence and the overall sentence were not manifestly excessive.

2. The sentencing judge was entitled to find that the statutory dangerousness test was met. The appellant offended in circumstances carrying a substantial risk of discovery and, having admitted the earlier offences, committed similar offences against another child eight days later. Those matters, together with the pre-sentence report’s assessment of a high risk of serious harm and the appellant’s continuing lack of responsibility, justified the conclusion that he presented a significant risk of further specified offences causing serious harm to children.

3. The judge was also entitled to conclude that an extended licence was necessary for public protection. A sexual harm prevention order and notification requirements did not make that conclusion erroneous.

4. The credit allowed for the guilty pleas was within the sentencing judge’s discretion, given the stage at which the pleas were indicated. It disclosed no error of principle.

5. Although the custodial terms were at the upper end for offending of this kind, they were not manifestly excessive. Consecutive sentences appropriately reflected the later offences having been committed while the appellant was on bail for the earlier offences. The judge had followed the Sentencing Guidelines and had given due regard to totality, age and previous good character.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against sentence: [2019] EWCA Crim 1134.

• Cambridge Crown Court: on 15 February 2019, imposed an eight-year extended sentence for the principal offences and concurrent determinate sentences for the remaining offences.