R v GS

Unjustifiable delay may be taken into account in sentencing where it has imposed additional strain on a defendant, but a sentencing court is not obliged to reduce the sentence for that reason. A defendant who contests the charge does not ordinarily obtain a reduction because of pre-trial delay. A reduction will generally require delay that is wholly out of the ordinary.

An authority addressing the effect of Covid-era prison overcrowding does not govern an ordinary complaint about investigative or pre-charge delay. The appellate question remains whether, viewed overall, the sentence is manifestly excessive.

The applicant was convicted after a jury trial in the Crown Court at Worcester of causing a child to engage in sexual activity and two indecent assaults. The offences were committed before the Sexual Offences Act 2003 came into force and were charged under the Sexual Offences Act 1956.

On 13 October 2023, the judge imposed a total of 11 years’ imprisonment and a one-year extended licence period under the Sentencing Act 2020. The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal against sentence after a single judge had refused permission. He contended that an erroneous finding of grooming and an unacceptable delay in investigation and trial made the sentence manifestly excessive.

1. Renewed leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The applicant had shown no reasonably arguable basis for concluding that the total sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment, with a one-year extended licence period, was manifestly excessive.
2. Unjustifiable delay can be relevant where it has imposed extra strain on a defendant, but it does not oblige the sentencing court to grant a reduction. The court applied R v Beattie-Milligan [2019] EWCA Crim 2367 in rejecting the submission that delay necessarily required an express discount.
3. Where a defendant has pleaded not guilty, pre-trial delay does not ordinarily warrant a sentencing benefit. Applying R v Timpson [2019] EWCA Crim 1785, the court held that a reduction would require delay wholly out of the ordinary. The principal complaint concerned the period before charge. Although the charging decision took significant time, the delay did not take the case outside the usual position.
4. R v Aire Ali [2023] EWCA Crim 232 did not assist. It concerned the effect of Covid-era prison overcrowding on custodial terms, not delay in investigation or prosecution.
5. Viewed in the overall context of repeated sexual offending against a child in the applicant’s care, the sentencing judge’s findings on breach of trust, enduring severe psychological harm and the course of conduct supported the sentence. Any potential adjustment arising from the grooming finding could not render it manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The court refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence after a single judge had refused permission: [2024] EWCA Crim 1215.
• Crown Court at Worcester: Following a jury trial, the applicant was convicted on 6 October 2023 and sentenced on 13 October 2023 to 11 years’ imprisonment with a one-year extended licence period: [T20200192].