ACF, R. v

In sentencing, attaining 18 years does not create a cliff edge. The court must assess an adult offender’s actual maturity and culpability, including the continuing effects of severe childhood sexual, physical and emotional abuse. Where those factors materially reduce culpability, they must be reflected in the sentence.

Sentences for similar offending must also reflect material differences between offenders, including their respective age, parental responsibility and role in creating the harmful family environment. A sentence that fails to give proper weight to those matters may be manifestly excessive. Concurrent sentences may be required to achieve a proportionate total sentence.

The appellant had received a total sentence of 28 years’ imprisonment for numerous sexual offences against younger siblings and for perverting the course of public justice. The principal sentence was 22 years’ imprisonment for a multiple-incident rape count concerning AMF between 2011 and 2016. A six-year sentence on an earlier multiple-incident rape count was consecutive.

He appealed his sentence. He relied on his own prolonged childhood sexual, physical and emotional abuse, his impaired maturity, and the sentencing judge’s decision to impose the same 22-year sentence as upon his father. The central issue was whether the sentence properly reflected that mitigation and totality.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The court quashed the 22-year sentence on count 46 and substituted 20 years’ imprisonment. It also quashed the consecutive direction for the six-year sentence on count 15 and directed that sentence to run concurrently. The total sentence was therefore reduced from 28 years to 20 years’ imprisonment.

2. The offending was of the utmost seriousness and had enduring effects upon the complainants. Nevertheless, sentencing required proper consideration of the appellant’s own background. He had been sexually abused from about age 11 to 14, neglected and physically abused, and had grown up in a family in which serious abuse had been normalised.

3. The appellant was 19 when the later offending began, but the consequences of his abusive childhood did not end when he reached adulthood. Applying the approach stated in R v Clarke and Others [2018] EWCA Crim 185, reaching 18 is not a sentencing cliff edge. The appellant’s immaturity and the continuing effects of his childhood trauma were highly relevant to culpability and should have reduced the sentence for count 46.

4. The sentencing judge had not identified any reduction for those matters on count 46. Nor was it justified to impose the same sentence as upon the appellant’s father, who was substantially older, was a parent, and had failed to protect the appellant while contributing to the destructive family environment. A 20-year concurrent sentence properly reflected the appellant’s mitigation and the overall criminality.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal in part, substituting a 20-year concurrent sentence for the 22-year sentence on count 46 and making the six-year sentence on count 15 concurrent.
• Crown Court at Reading: On 11 September 2017, imposed a total sentence of 28 years’ imprisonment following convictions and guilty pleas for sexual offences and perverting the course of public justice.