STEVEN PRIESTLEY, Re

Sentencing must reflect the offences established by the indictment and verdicts. Single-incident counts do not permit a court to sentence on the basis of a regular and repeated course of offending which the verdicts do not establish. Where a count covers a period and does not identify when within it an offence occurred, the court cannot infer that it was committed after an age threshold material to culpability.

In an Attorney-General reference, a sentence is not unduly lenient merely because another judge might have imposed a longer term. The question is whether it fell outside the reasonable range open to the sentencing judge, taking account of totality, mitigation and the offender’s youth when offending.

Steven Priestley was convicted at Bradford Crown Court of eleven historic sexual offences against two child victims. The indictment described nine occasions of abuse between 1989 and 1994. On 13 June 2022, HH Judge Rose imposed concurrent sentences totalling 32 months’ imprisonment.

The Attorney-General sought leave to refer the sentence as unduly lenient. The principal issues were whether the judge had understated the notional adult sentence for multiple offences against two victims, and whether any offence could properly be treated as having been committed after the offender’s eighteenth birthday.

1. Leave was refused. The concurrent sentence of 32 months’ imprisonment was not unduly lenient.

2. The indictment and verdicts established nine occasions of abuse, not a regular course of offending repeated throughout the relevant years. Apart from one limited multiple-incident count, the counts alleged single incidents. The court could not sentence on a factual basis which treated the offending as continuous or monthly conduct.

3. Nor could the judge find that any offence had been committed after the offender’s eighteenth birthday. The relevant counts covered date ranges and did not identify when an offence occurred. The Attorney-General’s contrary submission depended on an arithmetical error. The proper sentencing basis was therefore that the offender had been under 18 throughout.

4. The current guideline for the equivalent offence of sexual assault of a child under 13 was an accepted adult benchmark. A substantial uplift was required for the separate incidents and two victims. However, mitigation remained material before the reduction for age. Although another judge might have selected a longer notional adult sentence, 54 months was within the reasonable range. The unchallenged 40% reduction for youth, particularly as the most serious conduct occurred when the offender was 14 or 15, produced a sentence that was not unduly lenient.

5. In obiter observations, the court approved the approach in Limon [2022] EWCA Crim 39. The age-threshold guidance in youth sentencing guidelines may apply where an offender is sentenced as an adult for childhood offending, even after many years. The court considered that Forbes [2016] EWCA Crim 1388 should not be read as excluding that guidance. It rejected the submission that Limon was decided per incuriam, but stated that a specially constituted court might be needed if the point became decisive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Refused the Attorney-General leave to refer the sentence as unduly lenient under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988: [2022] EWCA Crim 1208.
• Crown Court at Bradford: HH Judge Rose convicted the offender on 23 March 2022 and, on 13 June 2022, imposed concurrent sentences totalling 32 months’ imprisonment.