Squires, R v

In sentencing sexual activity with a child under 16, a category 1A assessment must reflect the full seriousness of sustained offending. Relevant features include abuse of trust, concealment, a substantial age disparity, repeated offences over a lengthy period, continuation after an official warning, and conduct which inhibits disclosure. Genuine remorse, good character and a prompt guilty plea remain mitigating, but they may not reduce the starting point below one which properly reflects those aggravating features. Where the starting point is unduly low, an appellate court may substitute a sentence which gives full credit for the guilty plea while adequately marking the gravity of the offending.

The Solicitor General referred the offender’s sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as unduly lenient.

At Lewes Crown Court, the offender pleaded guilty to six counts of sexual activity with a child under 16, contrary to section 9(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and one count of sexual activity with a child by a person in a position of trust, contrary to section 16(1) of that Act. She was a teaching assistant who had engaged in repeated sexual activity with a vulnerable pupil over about 18 months. The overall sentence was 40 months’ imprisonment.

The issue was whether that sentence properly reflected category 1 harm, category A culpability, and the further aggravating features of the offending.

1. Leave was granted and the reference succeeded. The concurrent 40-month sentences on counts 3 and 4 were quashed and replaced with concurrent terms of 56 months’ imprisonment. The total sentence therefore became four years and eight months.

2. The sentencing judge correctly placed the offending in category 1A under the applicable guideline. There was vaginal penetration, abuse of a position of trust, concealment, and a substantial age disparity. The offender had also committed numerous offences over about 18 months against a vulnerable child.

3. The court held that the five-year starting point was too low. It did not adequately reflect the multiple-incident counts, the persistence of the offending after the school had warned the offender, and her conduct in warning the victim of the serious consequences of disclosure.

4. Remorse, good character, early admissions and a prompt guilty plea were material mitigation. However, good character had also enabled the offender to gain the child’s trust, and the mitigation could not justify the inadequate starting point. A starting point of at least seven years was required before allowing full credit for the guilty plea.

5. A term of 56 months’ imprisonment was therefore the appropriate sentence after that credit. The court rejected the submission that the seriousness was reduced because the offending could have been worse or involved no force.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — granted leave on the Solicitor General’s reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, quashed the relevant concurrent sentences and substituted 56-month concurrent terms: [2019] EWCA Crim 1167.
• Crown Court at Lewes — on 12 April 2019, accepted guilty pleas to all counts and imposed an overall sentence of 40 months’ imprisonment. No citation was stated in the judgment.
• Magistrates’ Court — on 7 March 2019, was informed of the intended guilty pleas and sent the case to the Crown Court for sentence.