Scarrott, R v

For multiple offences against separate victims, a sentencing guideline’s starting point for a single offence should not be assessed in isolation. The judge may impose global sentences for batches of offences against each victim and make those sentences consecutive, subject to the totality principle. Personal mitigation must be balanced against the gravity and scale of the offending. On an appeal against sentence, leave should be refused where it is not arguable that the total sentence is manifestly excessive. Autism may carry mitigating weight, but that weight is fact-sensitive. Where police intervention made the criminality and risk clear and offending continued knowingly, the sentencing judge may attach little weight to the autism.

The applicant was sentenced at the Crown Court at Minshull Street, Manchester, to eight years and four months’ imprisonment for 16 sexual offences against six girls aged 14 or 15. The offences included offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The applicant, aged 21 at sentence and of previous good character, renewed an application for leave to appeal against sentence after refusal by a single judge. The renewal was out of time, but a 33-day extension was granted. The applicant relied principally on totality, youth, lack of previous convictions and autism as mitigation. The central issue was whether the total sentence was arguably manifestly excessive.

The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

1. Sentencing structure. The Sentencing Council guideline indicated the appropriate level for a single offence. It was therefore wrong to assess each individual sentence by reference only to the uplift from that single-offence starting point. The judge was entitled, and correct, to impose global concurrent sentences for the offences against each victim, and to make the sentences for the separate batches consecutive. That approach followed the totality guideline and ensured that offending against each victim was acknowledged and demonstrably punished.
2. Totality and mitigation. The judge made totality his first principle and considered the sentence as a whole. Personal mitigation, including youth, lack of previous convictions and autism, had to be balanced against the gravity, scale and persistence of the offending. The seriousness of the course of offending justified a very significant custodial sentence despite the applicant’s age and previous good character.
3. Autism. The sentencing judge was entitled to attach little mitigating weight to the applicant’s autism. Whatever effect it may have had at the outset, police intervention after the first episode made clear that the conduct was criminal and posed a risk to young females. The applicant nevertheless persisted in similar offending and knew that he was forbidden from acting as he did.
4. Appellate review. The sole question was whether the total sentence was arguably manifestly excessive. The sentence was not arguably manifestly excessive; on the contrary, it was just and proportionate. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): A renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was heard. A 33-day extension of time was granted, but leave was refused: [2020] EWCA Crim 1435.
2. Single judge: The initial application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.
3. Crown Court at Minshull Street, Manchester: On 28 April 2020, His Honour Judge Potter sentenced the applicant to eight years and four months’ imprisonment.