R v Alan Luckhurst

When sentencing sexual offences, the Sentencing Council guideline must be applied unless the court finds that it would be in the interests of justice not to do so. A sentence must reflect separate courses of offending against separate victims, while applying totality. Touching naked breasts constitutes category 2 harm, and abuse of trust places an offence in culpability category A. A category 2A offence may be treated as the lead offence, with other offending aggregated to it. Separate offending against another victim may require a consecutive sentence where it represents separate criminality and harm. Significant mitigation and delay may reduce the sentence, but cannot justify suspension of the resulting aggregate custodial sentence.

The Attorney General’s Reference concerned a sentence imposed on Alan Luckhurst after his conviction following a nine-day jury trial. He was convicted of eight sexual assaults and two offences of causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent, involving two young women whom he had employed or supervised in hair salons. The Recorder imposed six months’ imprisonment, suspended for 18 months, with concurrent sentences and ancillary orders.

Under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the Solicitor General argued that the sentence was unduly lenient because it failed to reflect the guideline categories, the number of offences, the separate victims, abuse of trust and offending committed while on bail. The central issue was the shortest lawful sentence that properly reflected the offending, totality, mitigation and delay.

1. Reference allowed. The sentence was unduly lenient. The Court substituted an aggregate sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment, revoked the suspension order, and extended the sex offender notification requirements for life.
2. The Recorder was required to apply the Sentencing Council guideline unless he found that it was in the interests of justice not to do so. No such finding had been made, and the material before the Court disclosed no justification for departing from the guideline.
3. Count 10, involving the touching of B’s naked breasts, was a category 2A offence. Its starting point was two years’ custody. It was properly selected as the lead offence, with the other offending against B aggregated to it. Deliberate targeting, deliberate isolation of a young trainee and the fact that the offending occurred while the offender was on bail were aggravating features. Before mitigation, the least sentence was three years’ custody. Substantial personal mitigation reduced the sentence reflecting all the offending against B to two years.
4. The offences against A fell within category 3A, with a starting point of six months’ custody. Their number and aggravating features justified a sentence of one year before mitigation. The Court reduced that sentence to six months, taking account of substantial delay and the other mitigation. It had to run consecutively to the sentence for the offending against B because the two courses of conduct involved separate criminality and separate harm.
5. The resulting aggregate sentence could no longer remain suspended. The offender was directed to report to Kingston Upon Thames Police Station, with the police to be informed of the psychiatric report and expressed suicidal ideation.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On an Attorney General’s Reference under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, leave was granted, the sentence imposed by the Recorder was held to be unduly lenient, and an aggregate sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment was substituted: [2023] EWCA Crim 852.
• Crown Court: The offender was convicted and sentenced on 27 March 2023 to six months’ imprisonment, suspended for 18 months, with concurrent sentences and ancillary orders.