REGINA v PETER O

In sentencing appeals involving historic sexual abuse, delay caused by victims’ inability or unwillingness to report is not creditable mitigation. An offender cannot benefit from the effects of abuse that kept the offending secret. Delay may also have reduced the offender’s sentencing exposure where the maximum penalty at the offence date was lower, since that historical maximum remains the ceiling. The court should consider both individual sentences and the aggregate sentence under the principle of totality. A renewed application should be refused where it is not reasonably arguable that any sentence, or the overall sentence, is manifestly excessive or infringes totality.

The applicant, aged 78, was convicted at the Crown Court at Aylesbury of historic sexual offences and cruelty offences committed against four children between 1977 and 1992. He received an aggregate custodial term of 11 years and nine months, together with an extended licence. A single judge refused permission to appeal against sentence.

On renewal, the applicant challenged the principle of totality, the sentences for two counts, and the treatment of his age, ill-health and the delay before reporting and prosecution. The central issue was whether any individual sentence or the overall sentence was arguably manifestly excessive or infringed totality.

The court refused the renewed application for permission to appeal against sentence.

1. The court agreed with the single judge’s detailed reasons, which were contained in the Criminal Appeal Office summary, and stated that it could not improve upon them. None of the individual sentences was reasonably arguable as manifestly excessive, and the resulting overall sentence was not reasonably arguable as manifestly excessive or contrary to the principle of totality.
2. Delay in reporting historic sexual abuse was not a sound basis for challenging sentence. Victims may remain silent for many years because of confusion, distress, shame, fear and the effects of abuse. An offender is not entitled to credit for delay resulting from those consequences.
3. The delay had also operated to the applicant’s benefit. The law required the maximum sentence available when the offences were committed to remain the applicable limit, rather than the higher maximum available at conviction. The applicant had therefore benefited from the lower historical maxima, as well as from living for many years without conviction.
4. For offences charged under earlier legislation, the sentencing judge had correctly begun by considering the sentence for an equivalent offence under current law, while recognising that the historical maximum constrained the sentence imposed.
5. The complaints concerning the sentence for the passionate kiss, the consecutive sentence for cruelty, totality, age and ill-health did not make the sentence appeal reasonably arguable.
6. The renewed application was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): on 7 July 2022, the renewed application for permission to appeal against sentence was refused: [2022] EWCA Crim 1003.
2. Single judge: refused permission to appeal against sentence and gave detailed reasons in the Criminal Appeal Office summary.
3. Crown Court at Aylesbury: convicted the applicant on 17 December 2021 and sentenced him in February to the aggregate terms described in the judgment.