R v John Ives

A sentence for numerous serious offences must reflect the whole course of conduct while remaining just and proportionate under the totality principle. An appellate court will not interfere where the sentencing judge has correctly performed that exercise and the total sentence is not manifestly excessive.

A special custodial sentence under the Sentencing Act 2020 must be imposed only where the statutory conditions are met. In correcting unlawful sentences, the appellate court must also comply with the statutory bar on making the appellant’s position more severe. It may restructure concurrent and consecutive terms to preserve a lawful, proportionate overall sentence.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Isleworth of 31 historical sexual offences committed against five child complainants over a prolonged period. He received a total sentence of 22 years’ imprisonment, with special custodial sentences on certain counts.

He sought leave to appeal on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive for failure to give sufficient weight to totality. The Registrar also referred apparent errors in the use of special custodial sentences. The central issues were whether the overall sentence was excessive and how the unlawful sentences should be corrected without increasing their severity on appeal.

1. The appeal was allowed in part. Leave to appeal against sentence on totality was refused. The judge had correctly applied the totality principle. The offending involved a sustained and grave course of sexual abuse against five children, with profound harm. The total sentence of 22 years was just and proportionate and was not manifestly excessive.

2. The court granted leave to amend the grounds to challenge unlawful special custodial sentences under the Sentencing Act 2020. A special custodial sentence was neither required nor permitted for count 31 because the complainant was not under 13 when that offence was committed. The sentence on that count was therefore quashed and replaced by a concurrent determinate sentence of nine years.

3. On a proper reading of section 278 and Schedule 13 of the Sentencing Act 2020, special custodial sentences were required for counts 17, 26, 28 and 29. Those historic offences had modern equivalents of rape or attempted rape of a child under 13. The court substituted special custodial sentences of nine years plus one year’s further licence for count 17, and six years plus one year’s further licence for count 26, concurrently with the other sentences.

4. Applying R v Thompson [2018] EWCA Crim 639, section 11(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 prevented the court from increasing the appellant’s overall severity by adding a further licence period. Counts 28 and 29 were treated as the lead offences and each was replaced by a concurrent special custodial sentence of 22 years plus one year’s further licence. The total sentence consequently remained 22 years’ imprisonment and one additional year of licence. No victim surcharge was payable.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). In [2024] EWCA Crim 1415, the court refused leave on the totality ground but allowed the amended appeal to correct unlawful sentencing orders.
• Crown Court at Isleworth. The appellant was convicted on 1 November 2022 and sentenced on 31 March 2023 to a total of 22 years’ imprisonment with special custodial sentences on specified counts.