R v Paul Arthur King

When sentencing historic sexual offending, the court may have measured regard to the current sentencing regime, but the sentence must remain within the maximum penalty available when the offences were committed. Seriousness is principally assessed by the offender’s culpability and the harm caused or intended.

The totality principle concerns sentencing for multiple offences at the same time, or sentencing an offender already serving a sentence. It does not require a court sentencing a later-discovered offence to reconstruct an earlier sentencing exercise in which that offence was neither admitted nor taken into consideration.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at St Albans to attempted buggery of a male under 18 without consent and indecent assault, committed in 1983. In February 2023, he received concurrent sentences of eight years’ imprisonment.

After a single judge refused leave, he renewed his application to appeal sentence. He contended that insufficient credit had been allowed for mitigation and ill-health, that totality should have been considered by reference to earlier sentences for later offending, and that insufficient allowance had been made for the lower maximum sentence applicable in 1983.

1. The court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence. The concurrent eight-year sentences were neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.

2. The sentencing judge had correctly assessed the offending as exceptionally serious. He was entitled to give substantial weight to the severe and enduring psychological harm caused to the complainant, alongside the timing, location and other aggravating features. The applicant’s later offending was aggravating, while his subsequent good character and lack of further offending could properly be treated as balancing that aggravation.

3. The judge had given such credit as was justified for ill-health, mitigation and the late guilty plea. The expressed remorse was weakened by the late plea and the earlier blanket denial. Seriousness was to be assessed principally by culpability and the harm caused or intended.

4. The judge was entitled to use the current sentencing regime as a measured guide for historic offending, while observing the maximum sentence of 10 years available when the offences were committed. The eight-year sentence remained below that maximum.

5. The totality argument was misconceived. The principle applies where an offender is sentenced for multiple offences at the same time or is already serving a sentence. The present offences had not been admitted or taken into consideration at the earlier sentencing exercises. Had they been known then, they would likely have aggravated, rather than reduced, the earlier sentences.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — The court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence: [2023] EWCA Crim 1327.
• Single judge of the Court of Appeal — Leave to appeal against sentence was refused.
• Crown Court at St Albans — On 8 February 2023, the applicant was sentenced to concurrent terms of eight years’ imprisonment following guilty pleas.