R v BB

When sentencing historic sexual offending by reference to modern guidelines, the court must make a measured reference to those guidelines and the lower maxima applicable when the offences were committed. This is an overall evaluative exercise. It does not require a mathematical adjustment to each individual count.

The total sentence must remain proportionate to the overall criminality and all relevant mitigation, including delay. An appellate court will not intervene merely because a severe sentence could have been structured differently. It must be satisfied that the overall sentence was manifestly excessive.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Burnley of numerous historic offences of indecent assault and indecency with a child against his two stepdaughters, C1 and C2. The abuse occurred over many years when they were children. On 18 August 2023, the trial judge imposed an overall sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment.

With leave of the single judge, the appellant appealed against sentence. He challenged the finding that C2 had suffered severe psychological harm, the allowance for delay, and the judge’s use of current sentencing guidelines and historic statutory maxima. The central issue was whether the overall sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The overall sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment for sustained sexual abuse of two child victims was not manifestly excessive.

2. The trial judge was entitled to find that C2 had suffered severe psychological harm. The assessment could properly draw on both the victim personal statement and the judge’s observations of C2 while she gave evidence. There was ample evidence supporting that conclusion. The court applied the approach explained in R v Chall [2019] EWCA Crim 865.

3. The judge had made more than sufficient allowance for mitigation. A notional current-guideline sentence of 12 years for the offences against C1 represented a substantial reduction for the remaining offending, delay, and the appellant’s personal circumstances. Even if the notional eight-year sentence for the offending against C2 were relatively high, the overall notional sentence of 20 years was properly reduced to 16 years.

4. Totality required the overall sentence to be proportionate to the total criminality and relevant circumstances. It justified concurrent sentences for much of the offending and an adjustment to the cumulative effect of the consecutive sentences.

5. The requirement of measured reference to current guidelines did not prescribe a mathematical exercise or a separate adjustment for every individual sentence. The historic maximum was one consideration in an overall evaluative assessment. The fact that some individual sentences equalled the historic maximum did not establish error. Applying the guidance in R v Lamb [2020] EWCA Crim 881, the court assessed the sentencing exercise as a whole and concluded that adequate allowance had been made.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In R v BB [2024] EWCA Crim 1429, dismissed the appellant’s appeal against his 16-year sentence.
• Crown Court at Burnley: On 21 July 2023, convicted the appellant of historic sexual offences against C1 and C2. On 18 August 2023, imposed an overall sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment.