RJ, R v

For historic sexual offending, the court must sentence by reference to current sentencing practice and make measured and reflective use of the relevant guideline. It must not impose a sentence above the statutory maximum available when the offence was committed.

Youth at the time of offending, subsequent good character and ill-health may mitigate sentence. Their weight is limited where the offending was serious and caused lasting harm. An appellate court will not interfere with a total sentence that reflects a careful balance of those matters and is within the range properly open to the sentencing judge.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Isleworth of sexual offences against his younger half-sister, committed between 1968 and 1971 when he was aged 17 to 20 and she was aged 8 to 10. The offences included one offence of indecency with a child and repeated indecent assaults.

On 4 October 2018, the judge imposed a total sentence of six and a half years’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed, contending that the sentence was manifestly excessive because of his youth when offending, later good character, age, ill-health and his wife’s dependence upon him.

The central issue was whether the total sentence was manifestly excessive when assessed under current sentencing practice while observing the historic statutory maxima.

1. Appeal dismissed. The total sentence of six and a half years’ imprisonment was within the range properly open to the sentencing judge and was not manifestly excessive.

2. Following R v Forbes [2017] 1 WLR 53, historic offences must be sentenced appropriately under current sentencing practice, but the sentence for each count cannot exceed the maximum available when the offence was committed. The current guideline must be used in a measured and reflective manner, rather than mechanically.

3. The judge was entitled to treat the repeated sexual assaults on a young child, committed in her bedroom over time, and their lifelong effects upon her, as very serious offending. The modern equivalent and guideline demonstrated the present seriousness of the conduct, but did not displace the historic maxima under the Indecency with Children Act 1960 and the Sexual Offences Act 1956.

4. The appellant’s youth when offending required consideration of the guideline for young offenders. There was, however, no submission that he had been particularly immature. His lengthy subsequent good conduct was mitigating, but could carry only limited weight against offending of this gravity. His ill-health and the increased difficulty of imprisonment after his injury likewise carried limited weight and did not alter the sentencing decision.

5. The sentencing judge had identified and balanced the relevant aggravating and mitigating matters. The consecutive structure need not be separately examined once the court was satisfied that the total sentence was lawful and proportionate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed the appeal against sentence and upheld the total sentence of six and a half years’ imprisonment ([2019] EWCA Crim 1269).
• Crown Court at Isleworth — following convictions for historic sexual offences, imposed eighteen months’ imprisonment on count 1, three and a half years concurrently on count 2, and three years consecutively on count 3, totalling six and a half years’ imprisonment.