R v Gordon Suckley

For historic sexual offences committed by an adult, sentencing must use the regime at the date of sentence and remain within the maximum available when the offences were committed. The court should make measured reference to modern equivalent guidelines, applying current attitudes to culpability and harm rather than attempting to recreate the sentence that would have been imposed at the time. The appropriate total sentence should be fixed by totality and then distributed between counts. Consecutive sentences and counts exceeding the sentence that would have been imposed for isolated offending may be proper. Age and ill health warrant proportionate mitigation, but limited evidence may justify only limited weight. In very serious sexual offending, absence of convictions is ordinarily of little significance.

After pleading guilty on the first day of trial to five counts of historic sexual offending against his son, the offender was sentenced at the Crown Court at Exeter to seven and a half years’ imprisonment, with a further two-year aggregate licence period. The Solicitor General referred the sentence under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as unduly lenient. The central issues were whether the judge had wrongly constrained the sentence by the historical maximum penalties and had made excessive reductions for age, ill health, absence of convictions and the guilty plea.

Reference allowed. The Court of Appeal increased the total custodial sentence to 15 years and three months, with the two-year aggregate licence period preserved.

1. For historic sexual offending by an adult, the court sentences under the regime applicable at the date of sentence, subject to the maximum sentence available when the offence was committed. Modern equivalent sentencing guidelines must be used by measured reference. The assessment must reflect modern attitudes to culpability and harm, rather than seeking to recreate the sentence likely to have been imposed at the time of the offending. That approach was explained through R v Clifford [2014] EWCA Crim 2245, R v Forbes [2016] EWCA Crim 1388 and R v DL [2020] EWCA Crim 881.
2. The judge was right to identify the appropriate overall sentence by reference to totality and then distribute it between the counts. Consecutive sentences may be required, and a sentence on an individual count may exceed the sentence that would have been imposed had that count represented the whole offending. The approach in R v Clifford and R v Griffiths [2020] EWCA Crim 732 was applied. The historical maximums did not constrain the totality exercise because the aggregate maximum was 26 years and the counts represented multiple offending.
3. The judge was entitled to infer some ill health from the offender’s remote-sentencing request and use of crutches. In the absence of a medical report or detailed evidence, however, that could not justify substantial mitigation. Applying R v Clarke [2017] EWCA Crim 393, the offender’s age provided real mitigation but did not warrant a lengthy reduction given the seriousness of the offending. The comparisons in R v Forbes and R v F [2017] EWCA Crim 481 supported that conclusion. Absence of convictions was not significant mitigation in offending of this seriousness and with such traumatic consequences.
4. The appropriate sentence after all mitigation was at least 17 years after trial, reduced by about 10 per cent for the guilty plea to 15 years and three months. The sentences on counts 1 and 2 remained one year’s custody plus one year on licence under the Sentencing Act 2020. The sentences on counts 3, 4 and 5 were increased to two years, six years and five years and three months respectively, all consecutive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On a reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, leave was granted and the sentences were increased: [2023] EWCA Crim 666.
• Crown Court at Exeter: The offender was sentenced on 23 February 2023 to seven and a half years’ imprisonment with a further two-year aggregate licence period. No separate citation is stated in the judgment.