R v VPT

Sentencing for historical sexual offences committed by a child or young person requires application of the current sentencing regime and the modern equivalent offence, using current guidelines by measured reference. The court must respect the maximum sentence available when the offence was committed and should not recreate the sentence likely to have been imposed decades earlier. The offender’s age at the time remains important, but a sentence may reflect the serious and sustained nature of multiple offences against more than one victim. An adult guideline starting point may be inappropriate for a single historic offence committed by a teenager, yet appropriate within the range for a serious catalogue of offending. Immediate custody may be justified where suspension would not adequately reflect repeated sexual offending.

The appellant pleaded guilty to five indecent assaults committed in the 1970s against two nephews when he was aged 14 and 15. The Crown Court at Warwick imposed a total sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment, comprising concurrent sentences for offences against one victim and a consecutive sentence for an offence against the other. A restraining order and notification requirements under Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 were also imposed.

The appellant appealed against sentence, arguing that the judge had used the maximum available sentences as starting points and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The central issues were the correct approach to historical sexual offences committed by a child, the effect of the offender’s age at the time, and whether immediate imprisonment was justified.

1. Appeal dismissed. The total sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment was within the range properly open to the sentencing judge and was not manifestly excessive.
2. For historical sexual offences, the court must apply the current sentencing regime and identify the modern equivalent offence. Current offence-specific guidelines are used by measured reference. The court must not exceed the maximum sentence available when the offences were committed and should not attempt to recreate the sentence likely to have been imposed at that historical time.
3. The guideline for Sentencing Children and Young People applies even where the offender is an adult at conviction. As explained in R v Ahmed [2023] EWCA Crim 281, the sentence should ordinarily be limited by the maximum available when sentencing a person of the offender’s age at the time of offending. The judge had properly treated the maximum available for the appellant at age 14 as three months’ detention centre order and the maximum available at age 15 as two years’ Borstal training, reflected by the modern equivalent of four years’ imprisonment.
4. An adult category starting point under the modern guideline would not have been appropriate for a single offence committed by a teenage boy 50 years earlier. This was, however, a substantial and sustained catalogue of offending against two victims. The sentence could properly reflect the number and seriousness of the assaults, including the touching under clothing, while allowing for the appellant’s age at the time. The judge was also entitled to consider the multiple victims, abuse of position and efforts to prevent reporting, together with the guilty pleas, good character, health and personal history in mitigation.
5. Although suspension was not argued, the court considered it. The absence of penetration did not require suspension. The repeated offences against different victims over a prolonged period were sufficiently serious that only immediate imprisonment could properly deal with the offending.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): appeal against sentence dismissed, [2025] EWCA Crim 1187.
• Crown Court at Warwick: following guilty pleas on re-arraignment, Mr Recorder Duck KC imposed a total sentence of 21 months’ imprisonment on 22 April 2025.