R v Stephen Ronald Cox

For historic sexual offences, sentencing is governed by the regime in force at the date of sentence, subject to the maximum available when the offence was committed. Modern guidelines may be used by measured reference, with appropriate adjustment where the historic maximum was lower. Totality is a matter of substance: the aggregate sentence must reflect all the offending and remain just and proportionate. Consecutive sentences may be appropriate for distinct serious offences. On a conviction challenge, a jury may accept complainant evidence, reject the defence case, and reach different verdicts on different counts; those features do not, without more, establish an unsafe conviction.

The appellant, a GP, was convicted following a retrial of twelve counts of indecent assault against seven female patients, contrary to section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. The Crown Court at Reading sentenced him to 22 years’ imprisonment.

He appealed against sentence with leave, arguing that consecutive sentences, the guideline starting points and the aggregate sentence were excessive. He also renewed an application for leave to appeal his convictions, alleging that the jury had misunderstood the directions, applied the wrong burden of proof and returned inconsistent verdicts. The central issues were whether the sentence was unjust or disproportionate and whether the convictions were arguably unsafe.

The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The renewed application for leave to appeal conviction and the application for an extension of time were refused.

1. Historic offences. Sentencing is governed by the sentencing regime and practice applicable at the date of sentence. The circumstances and seriousness of the offending remain the main focus. The sentence cannot exceed the maximum available when the offence was committed, but it is unrealistic to reconstruct the sentence that would have been imposed at that time. Modern guidelines may be used by measured reference. Where the historic maximum was lower, the starting point and category range must be adjusted in a measured way. The court applied the approach in R v H and Others [2011] EWCA Crim 2753 and R v Forbes [2016] EWCA Crim 1388.
2. Totality. Totality is a question of substance, not form. The overall sentence must reflect all the offending behaviour and be just and proportionate. On appeal, this court should be able to assess that question from the relevant facts, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and the calibration of the sentence against the guideline. The court applied the approach in R v Bailey [2020] EWCA Crim 1719.
3. Application to sentence. The judge was entitled not to reduce mechanically the eight-year starting point for the two most serious offences. She had recognised the need for a measured reduction but explained that the high degree of doctor-patient trust justified the starting point adopted. The sentences remained below the historic ten-year maximum. Consecutive sentences for offences committed seven to nine years apart against different women were permissible. The fact that other offences involved the same complainant did not require concurrency where the principal sentence was uplifted to reflect the related conduct and offending over the relevant period.
4. Convictions. There was no basis to infer that the jury had ignored the judge’s clear directions or applied the civil standard of proof. The jury were entitled to accept the complainants’ evidence, reject the appellant’s account and distinguish between counts. The acquittals on some counts did not make the convictions on others inconsistent or unsafe. The Court agreed with the single judge’s reasons and added nothing further.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Sentence appeal dismissed; renewed application for leave to appeal conviction and application for an extension of time refused: [2025] EWCA Crim 1625.
• Single judge: Leave to appeal sentence granted; leave to appeal conviction refused, leading to the renewed application before the Court of Appeal.
• Crown Court at Reading: Following retrial, the appellant was convicted of twelve counts of indecent assault and sentenced to 22 years’ imprisonment.