M, R v

A sentencing court must give proper weight to relevant mitigation, explain a sentence imposed above the applicable guideline starting point, and ensure that the overall sentence satisfies the principle of totality. Where consecutive sentences for related sexual offences produce an excessive aggregate, concurrency may be required to achieve a proportionate total sentence.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Norwich of three historical sexual offences committed against his nephew and niece when they were children. He received five years’ imprisonment for the principal indecent assault and two consecutive terms of one year, making a total of seven years.

He appealed on the basis that the five-year sentence was too high and that the overall sentence failed to reflect mitigation and totality. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge had adequately justified a sentence above the relevant guideline starting point and whether the aggregate sentence was excessive.

1. Appeal allowed to the extent of varying the total sentence from seven years to six years’ imprisonment.

2. The offences were serious, were not fleeting, and had lasting effects on the victims. Aggravating features included the substantial age disparity and abuse of trust.

3. However, the sentencing remarks gave little reference or weight to relevant mitigation. They did not explain why the five-year sentence for the principal count exceeded the guideline starting point identified by the judge.

4. Considering the sentence as a whole, proper weight to mitigation and the principle of totality required a six-year aggregate sentence. The appropriate mechanism was to make the twelve-month sentence on the second count concurrent with the five-year sentence on the first count. The consecutive twelve-month sentence for the offence against the niece remained, producing a total of six years.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal to the extent of substituting a total sentence of six years’ imprisonment: [2020] EWCA Crim 10.

• Crown Court at Norwich: On 12 July 2019, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to a total of seven years’ imprisonment.