R v Terence Maurice Burke

In a sentence appeal involving multiple sexual offences against two victims, consecutive sentences may properly be imposed for offending against each victim, while sentences for multiple counts concerning the same victim may run concurrently. The total sentence must remain proportionate and reflect the overall gravity of the offending. A sentencing judge satisfies the totality principle by addressing it expressly and making the necessary overall assessment. A sentence which is severe, including for an older offender with health difficulties, is not manifestly excessive where it is within the proper sentencing approach. Particular weight may be given to a gross breach of trust by a person responsible for safeguarding children.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Truro of 16 historical sexual offences committed against two female pupils between 2000 and 2005. He received concurrent sentences for the offences against each victim, but consecutive lead sentences of eight and 10 years, producing a total of 18 years’ imprisonment.

He renewed his application for leave to appeal against sentence. He argued that the historical maximum for one offence had not sufficiently reduced the modern guideline starting point, that the sentence for the second victim failed to account for her turning 16 during the offending, and that the sentencing judge had not properly applied totality. The central issue was whether the sentence was wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.

1. Renewed application refused. The sentence was neither wrong in principle nor manifestly excessive, although it was severe, particularly for an offender of advanced age with health difficulties.
2. There was no principled objection to consecutive sentences for the offending against the two victims. The numerous counts relating to each victim were properly made concurrent within each group, while the consecutive lead sentences reflected the overall gravity of the offending.
3. The sentencing judge had expressly considered totality and proportionality. The aggregate sentence therefore had to be assessed against the overall offending, rather than by simply adding individual sentences without adjustment. The appellate court was also entitled to take account of the judge’s superior position, having conducted the trial, when assessing seriousness and sentence structure.
4. The applicant’s role as a senior teacher and safeguarding lead made the offending a gross breach of trust. He was the person to whom the pupils should have been able to turn for help, but exploited that position to abuse them. That feature supported the seriousness of the sentences.
5. The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): On 13 September 2024, the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.
• Crown Court at Truro: Following convictions on 12 July 2023, Saini J sentenced the applicant on 13 July 2023 to 18 years’ imprisonment, comprising consecutive sentences of eight and 10 years, with concurrent sentences within the offending against each victim.