REGINA v TERRY JOHN HOTSTON

In a multi-count sentencing exercise for historic and recent sexual offending, the total sentence must reflect the offender’s overall criminality and remain just and proportionate. The court should assess the seriousness, duration, multiplicity, harm and aggravating features of the offending, together with relevant mitigation, while applying the Sentencing Council Guideline on Totality. Previous good character ordinarily carries little weight in this context. A sentence on every count must be pronounced publicly. If a count is omitted, a corrective sentence must also be imposed in open court where the intended sentence can be identified. Such correction does not necessarily alter the aggregate sentence.

The appellant was convicted after trial in the Crown Court at Winchester of 12 historic and recent sexual offences involving three female family members. On 3 June 2021 the judge imposed an aggregate sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment on counts 1, 2 and 4 to 12, but failed to pronounce sentence on count 3, an indecent assault contrary to section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956.

The appellant renewed an application for leave to appeal against sentence, arguing that 12 years was manifestly excessive and that the totality should have been about 10 years. Limited leave had been granted concerning the omitted sentence on count 3. The central issues were whether the aggregate sentence was disproportionate and how the omission should be corrected.

1. Renewed application against the aggregate sentence refused. The total sentence of 12 years was not arguably manifestly excessive or disproportionate. The judge had conducted a complex sentencing exercise, taken totality into account as an important factor, and considered the available mitigation, including the appellant’s age at the time of some offending and his health.
2. The offending was sustained over many years, involved three family members, included multiple-incident counts, and caused very serious harm, particularly to C2. There was a significant age gap between the appellant and the victims. The judge was also entitled to take account of the appellant’s lack of real understanding of the harm caused. The individual four-year sentences for the collections of offending could justifiably have been considerably higher.
3. In this context, previous good character and reputation ordinarily carried no significant weight and did not justify reducing the sentence that would otherwise have been appropriate. The aggregate sentence properly marked the appellant’s overall criminality.
4. Sentence on count 3 pronounced. The appellant had been convicted on count 3, but the judge had overlooked it when pronouncing sentence. Applying R v P [2014] EWCA Crim 1221, a sentence on every count before the court must be pronounced publicly, and any corrective amendment must also be made in open court. The judge clearly intended a four-year sentence concurrent with the sentences for the other C2 offending. The Court therefore imposed four years’ imprisonment on count 3, concurrent with counts 2 and 4 to 10. The overall sentence remained 12 years.

• Crown Court at Winchester: Following conviction after trial, the judge sentenced the appellant on 3 June 2021 to a total of 12 years’ imprisonment on the specified counts, but omitted to pronounce sentence on count 3.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Limited leave was granted in relation to count 3. The renewed application concerning the aggregate sentence was refused. A four-year concurrent sentence was pronounced on count 3, leaving the total sentence unchanged.