REGINA v GJ

On an appeal against sentence, the decisive question is whether the overall sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. A sentencing judge may find severe psychological harm from the evidence without expert evidence where the harm substantially exceeds that ordinarily inherent in the offence.

A learning disability mitigates sentence where it affects responsibility or is linked to the offending, but the judge need not quantify the allowance if it has been properly considered. An appellate court will not disturb a dangerousness assessment unless it was not reasonably open to the sentencing judge.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Northampton to serious sexual offences against his niece, committed when she was aged between seven and 12. The offences included assaults by penetration, sexual assaults, and causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

On 19 January 2022, the sentencing judge imposed an extended sentence on the lead count comprising 10 years’ custody and a two-year extension period, with concurrent sentences on the remaining counts. The appellant challenged the guideline categorisation, the treatment of his learning disability, and the finding of dangerousness. The central issue was whether the resulting pre-plea total of 15 years was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

1. Appeal dismissed. The pre-plea total sentence of 15 years, reflected in a 10-year custodial term after guilty-plea credit and a two-year extension period, was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

2. The judge was entitled to place the lead assault by penetration in category 2 harm. The victim’s evidence demonstrated seriously debilitating and enduring psychological trauma, well beyond the psychological harm ordinarily expected from a single episode of such abuse. The assessment was for the sentencing judge, who did not require expert evidence: R v Chall [2019] EWCA Crim 865.

3. The Court was inclined to the view that a child aged seven was not particularly vulnerable through extreme youth alone. Personal circumstances might instead establish category 2 harm, but the court must avoid double counting with culpability factors. That issue did not require decision because severe psychological harm independently established category 2.

4. Where the offender was babysitting, he had been placed in a position of responsibility towards the child and grossly abused that trust. This was materially different from the mere existence of a family or social relationship. The uplift from 10 to 15 years before plea properly reflected the repeated penetrative assaults and the numerous sexual assaults.

5. The judge gave proper weight to the appellant’s mild learning disability. The evidence showed that he knew his conduct was wrong and criminal, so his impairment did not materially reduce responsibility for the offending. The judge was not required to express the mitigating reduction as a number of years or percentage.

6. There was ample evidence to support the dangerousness finding, including the sustained offending, grooming and family circumstances identified in the pre-sentence report. The finding was plainly reasonably open to the sentencing judge, and the extended sentence was properly imposed.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed the appeal against sentence: [2022] EWCA Crim 1094.
• Crown Court at Northampton — on 19 January 2022 imposed an extended sentence of 10 years’ custody with a two-year extension period on the lead count, with concurrent sentences on the other counts.