R v Desmond Odunlami

In a sentencing appeal, the decision whether to suspend custody is an evaluative exercise for the sentencing judge, applying the relevant guideline and weighing all material factors. The Court of Appeal will not ordinarily interfere absent an error of principle or omission of a relevant factor. Continuing denial of the offence may bear on the prospects of meaningful rehabilitation, remorse and personal mitigation. Claimed family responsibilities must be supported by evidence establishing genuine dependency and significant likely harm. Immediate custody may therefore be upheld where the judge was entitled to conclude that proper punishment could be achieved only through imprisonment.

Following a trial at Woolwich Crown Court, the appellant was convicted of sexual assault contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. He appealed against sentence with permission from the single judge. He accepted the categorisation and length of the custodial term, but challenged the refusal to suspend it. The appeal relied on his previous good character, lack of previous convictions, family responsibilities and asserted low risk of reoffending. The central issue was whether the Recorder had erred in concluding that immediate custody was necessary.

Disposition

The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

1. The appellant did not challenge the categorisation of the offence under the definitive guideline or the 12-month term. The Recorder had conducted the trial and was well placed to assess the seriousness of the offending.
2. On suspension, the Recorder had directed himself by reference to the criteria in the guideline Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences. He made no error of principle and omitted no relevant factor. The weighing of those factors was an evaluative matter for him, with which the Court of Appeal would not ordinarily interfere.
3. The pre-sentence report justified the conclusion that prospects of rehabilitation were not good. It identified a medium likelihood of further sexual or sexually motivated contact offending and a medium risk of sexual and emotional harm to adult females. The appellant’s continuing denial could prevent rehabilitation work from being meaningful. His lack of remorse was relevant both to that issue and to the assessment of personal mitigation.
4. The evidence did not establish that the appellant’s partner and stepdaughter were his dependants in the normal sense. It showed that he was to some extent dependent on his partner. The information about the family circumstances was limited, and significant harmful impact from imprisonment had not been demonstrated.
5. The Recorder was therefore entitled to conclude that appropriate punishment could be achieved only by immediate custody. The sentence was upheld.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appeal against sentence, holding that the Recorder had made no error of principle and was entitled to impose immediate custody.
2. Crown Court at Woolwich: following trial, convicted the appellant of sexual assault and imposed 12 months’ imprisonment on 14 March 2023.