REGINA v ADAM SINEY

In sentencing sexual offences committed in a military setting, the court may treat the service context and the need for deterrence as relevant to seriousness. Where a person is convicted by Court-Martial of sexual assault and sentenced to more than 112 days’ Service detention, notification requirements under Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 follow automatically. They are a statutory consequence, not a separate punishment. A sentencing court must not reduce an otherwise appropriate sentence merely to avoid that consequence. A sentence challenge based on unspecified comparisons with other cases discloses no arguable ground.

The applicant, a Lance Corporal, pleaded guilty to misconduct through alcohol under section 20(1)(b) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 and was convicted after trial of three offences under section 42 of that Act, namely sexual assault contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The Court-Martial imposed 180 days’ Service detention, concurrent terms on the other charges and reduction in rank. The convictions also triggered notification requirements under Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

He renewed an application for leave to appeal against sentence, arguing that the sentence was excessive compared with unspecified cases and that the notification requirements might lead to his administrative discharge. Any appeal against conviction was separate and was not before the court. The central issues were whether there was an arguable sentencing error and whether the statutory notification consequences could be challenged or avoided.

Lord Justice Holroyde, giving the judgment of the court, refused the renewed application.

1. Sentence. The Court-Martial correctly identified the aggravating and mitigating factors. Sexual offending of this nature was particularly serious in the military context, and the Court-Martial was entitled to conclude that deterrence was necessary. The sentence of 180 days’ Service detention was within the court’s proper sentencing judgment. No comparator case had been identified to support the submission that the sentence was excessive, so there was no arguable ground for challenging it.
2. Notification requirements. The requirements under Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 were not a separate part of the punishment. The combined effect of sections 80, 82 and 137 and paragraphs 18 and 93A of Schedule 3 was that a person convicted by Court-Martial of an offence of committing a criminal offence of sexual assault, and sentenced to more than 112 days’ Service detention, automatically became subject to the requirements. It would not have been proper to reduce the lowest sentence regarded as appropriate merely to avoid that statutory consequence.
3. Administrative discharge. The court noted the guidance indicating that a Court-Martial had no power to forbid or prohibit a subsequent administrative discharge. The guidance also indicated that, as a matter of fairness, the Services ought not ordinarily to discharge a serviceman after the court had decided not to dismiss him, unless other relevant factors had not been before the court. That observation did not provide a basis for appealing against the automatic notification requirements.

The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence failed and was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2022] EWCA Crim 266, the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The proposed appeal against conviction was not before the court.
• Military Court Centre at Bulford: On 1 October 2021, the applicant was convicted and sentenced to 180 days’ Service detention, with concurrent terms on the other charges, and reduced in rank to Private.