R v Clive Lloyd

When sentencing historic sexual offences, current sentencing guidelines may be used as a comparator, but the court must make a real adjustment for the offender's age at the time and the lower historical sentencing regime. A sentence approaching the level now imposed may indicate that the adjustment is insufficient.

The totality principle permits consecutive sentences for multiple offences, provided the overall sentence is just and proportionate. Lack of previous convictions may carry little weight where offending was protracted, and later good character need not attract significant weight. Here, 14 years' custody was manifestly excessive and was reduced to 12 years, with four years' extended licence.

After a jury trial at the Crown Court at Norwich, the appellant was convicted of six counts of indecent assault contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 1956. The trial judge imposed consecutive special custodial sentences under the Sentencing Act 2020, producing an overall sentence of 18 years, comprising 14 years' custody and four years' extended licence.

The appellant appealed against sentence. The central issues were whether modern sentencing guidelines had been used mechanistically despite the historic offending, and whether the 14-year custodial term was manifestly excessive. The appeal required assessment of totality and of the weight to be given to the appellant's youth at the time, subsequent good character, present circumstances and reporting delay.

The appeal was allowed to a limited extent.

1. Consecutive sentences for counts 3 to 6 were permissible in principle, subject to totality. The overall sentence had to be just and proportionate to the criminality involved and the other relevant circumstances.
2. The current sentencing regime could be used as a comparator. The court accepted the category 2A classification for an equivalent single offence under section 6 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, with an 11-year starting point and a range of seven to 15 years. That comparison did not justify mechanically matching a sentence imposed today. The lower punishment available when the offences were committed, and the appellant's youth at the time, required a significant adjustment. Applying R v Forbes [2016] EWCA Crim 1388, [2017] 1 WLR 53, the fact that the sentence approached the current level indicated that insufficient adjustment had been made.
3. The absence of previous convictions carried little weight because the offending was protracted. The court was not persuaded that significant weight should be given to subsequent good character. The appellant's present age and health, good work ethic, and delay in reporting did not materially alter the assessment.
4. Overall, the 14-year custodial term was manifestly excessive. The sentences on counts 4 and 6 were quashed and replaced with consecutive special custodial sentences of three years' custody and one year's extended licence on each count. The overall sentence was therefore reduced from 18 years to 16 years, comprising 12 years' custody and four years' extended licence.
5. No statutory surcharge was payable for offences of this age.

• Crown Court at Norwich: Following a jury trial, the appellant was convicted on six counts of indecent assault and sentenced to an overall special custodial sentence of 18 years.
• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2023] EWCA Crim 1038, the appeal was allowed to the extent that the sentences on counts 4 and 6 were reduced. The overall sentence became 16 years.