Lamb, R. v

For historic sexual offending, sentence is imposed under the regime and sentencing practice current at the date of sentence, but it cannot exceed the statutory maximum available when the offence was committed. A court must make measured reference to current definitive guidelines. This is not an arithmetical exercise. It requires reflective calibration and a reduction which properly accounts for the earlier maximum, rather than simply applying the modern guideline subject to a historical cap.

On an appeal against sentence, the appellate court assesses whether the total sentence is excessive and may adjust it proportionately without reconstructing every individual sentence.

Lamb, then aged 72, was convicted after trial of 21 historic sexual offences against five boys who had been in his care as a football or hockey coach between 1977 and 1999. The offences included indecent assaults, acts of indecency with children and buggery. The victims were aged between 11 and 17.

At Sheffield Crown Court on 4 December 2019, the judge imposed a total of 30 years’ imprisonment. Lamb challenged the sentence as manifestly excessive. He contended that the judge had not made sufficient measured reference to contemporary sentencing guidelines when sentencing within the lower statutory maxima applicable at the times of offending. One concurrent sentence also exceeded its applicable historical maximum.

1. Appeal allowed. The total sentence of 30 years’ imprisonment was excessive. It was reduced to 25 years by ordering the five-year term on count 15 to run concurrently with the other sentences.

2. The governing approach was that set out in R v Forbes and others [2016] EWCA Crim 1388, which restated the guidance in R v H (J) [2011] EWCA Crim 2753. Historic offences must be sentenced under the regime applicable at the date of sentence and by reference to current sentencing practice. The sentence remains limited by the maximum available when the offence was committed.

3. Measured reference does not require a mathematical calculation. It requires a judge to use the contemporary guideline reflectively and to calibrate the sentence so that the earlier statutory maximum is properly reflected. It is insufficient simply to apply the current guideline, subject only to the earlier maximum.

4. Although the sentencing judge had approached the case with conspicuous care and had correctly recognised the gravity, planning, breach of trust and enduring harm involved, she had not adequately made that calibration. Applying totality, a 25-year total was proportionate and did not understate the seriousness or effects of the abuse.

5. The six-year sentence on count 8 was unlawful because the maximum at the time of that offence was two years. It was reduced to one year. As that term was concurrent, the correction did not affect the total sentence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Allowed Lamb’s appeal against sentence and varied the total sentence from 30 to 25 years’ imprisonment: [2020] EWCA Crim 881.
• Sheffield Crown Court On 4 December 2019, following convictions after trial on 21 counts of historic sexual offending, imposed a total sentence of 30 years’ imprisonment.