R v BLP

In sexual assault sentencing, a victim’s particular vulnerability may support a higher harm assessment where it arises from personal circumstances, such as being in care and being lured to an empty property. Significant planning and deception, and an abuse of trust, may support the highest culpability category. A finding of severe psychological harm is not required where the evidence establishes significant psychological harm sufficient to justify an uplift within the applicable category. Separate reliance on vulnerability, psychological harm, breach of trust and planning is not impermissible double counting where each factor performs a distinct sentencing function. An appellate court will not grant leave merely because it might have assessed those features differently.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Winchester of two sexual assaults, contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, committed against his partner’s 16-year-old granddaughter. He received concurrent sentences of 40 months’ imprisonment. The sentencing judge placed the offending in Category 2A, relying on the victim’s particular vulnerability, significant psychological harm, abuse of trust, and significant planning and deception.

After a single judge refused leave to appeal against sentence, the applicant renewed his application. He challenged the guideline category, the assessment of psychological harm, vulnerability, trust and planning, and alleged double counting. The central issue was whether the sentence was arguably manifestly excessive. The judgment was anonymised under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992.

The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The sentence was not arguably manifestly excessive.

1. The offending was properly placed in Category 2A. The victim’s circumstances, including her being in care and being lured to an empty family property where she was alone with the applicant, made her particularly vulnerable. The offending involved Category 2 harm and Culpability A.
2. The sentencing judge did not find severe psychological harm. That finding was unnecessary. The victim personal statement evidenced significant psychological harm, including continuing emotional and psychological effects, and this amply justified an increase from the starting point within Category 2A.
3. The judge was entitled to find an abuse of trust arising from the applicant’s relationship with the victim’s grandmother and his deception of the victim. In any event, abuse of trust was not the only Culpability A factor. The significant planning and deception independently supported the culpability assessment.
4. There was no impermissible double counting. Breach of trust, psychological harm, vulnerability and planning were distinct features relevant to the sentencing assessment. The concurrent sentences for offences committed on the same occasion did not make the overall sentence manifestly excessive.
5. The court added that the location of the offences and the applicant’s attempt to persuade the victim not to report them were further aggravating factors. Those observations were not necessary to the refusal of leave.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The court held that the sentence was not arguably manifestly excessive: [2024] EWCA Crim 1674.
2. Single judge of the Court of Appeal: The initial application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.
3. Crown Court at Winchester: The applicant was convicted of two sexual assaults and sentenced to concurrent terms of 40 months’ imprisonment.