Spencer, R v

In a sentence appeal, the court must assess the offending as a whole, including the number of victims, its duration, breach of trust and vulnerability. Historic offending is not ordinarily treated more leniently solely because of its age, subject to any change in the available statutory maximum.

Physical and mental disabilities may make imprisonment more severe for a particular offender and may affect sentence length. They do not preclude immediate custody where the seriousness of repeated sexual offending against very young children makes custody inevitable. A sentence within the applicable guideline range, which reflects mitigation and totality, will not be manifestly excessive merely because a shorter sentence was sought.

The applicant renewed an application for leave to appeal against a five-year sentence imposed at Leeds Crown Court on 22 November 2019 for five historic offences of indecent assault.

The offences were committed in the early 1990s against two young sisters aged about eight and six. The applicant had become a trusted family visitor and committed repeated assaults over time. The sentencing judge imposed a five-year lead sentence for the most serious count to reflect the totality of the offending, with concurrent sentences on the remaining counts.

The application relied on the age of the offending, the applicant's immaturity at the time, and his significant physical and mental health difficulties. The central issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or wrongly deterrent.

1. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed. The sentence of five years' imprisonment was not reasonably arguable to be manifestly excessive.

2. The sentencing judge had properly selected the most serious count as the lead count and used it to reflect the overall criminality, while imposing concurrent lesser sentences for the other offences. The lead sentence remained within the modern sentencing guideline range for a single offence, despite the repeated offending against two victims.

3. The court took full account of the applicant's spina bifida, hydrocephalus, brain injury, visual impairment, learning difficulties and mental ill health. Those conditions would make custody more severe for him than for an able-bodied prisoner and could therefore bear, to some extent, on sentence length. They did not make the imposed term excessive in the circumstances.

4. The sentencing judge's reference to deterrence did not show that he had imposed a deterrent sentence. Read in context, it was an answer to the submission that the personal effect of imprisonment should substantially reduce the sentence.

5. The court endorsed the single judge's observations that the historic nature of the offending did not itself require leniency, subject to differences in maximum sentences. Immediate custody was inevitable for repeated sexual offending against two very young and vulnerable victims. The applicant's continued denial and unwillingness to address his cognitive difficulties, together with the assessed risk to children and vulnerable adults, reinforced the conclusion that the sentence was proper.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed in [2020] EWCA Crim 799.
• Leeds Crown Court: on 22 November 2019, imposed five years' imprisonment for five offences of indecent assault.