R v Yossa Maunders

When sentencing an adult for sexual offences committed as a child, the court should start with the sentence likely to have been imposed when the offences were committed and consider the maximum then available. Current guidelines may inform the assessment, but the historical maximum should be exceeded only for good reason.

An extended sentence is available only where every statutory condition is satisfied. An offence must be a specified sexual offence in Part 2 of Schedule 18 to the Sentencing Act 2020. Totality may permit aggregation to meet the four-year term condition, but consecutive sentences cannot be imposed solely for that purpose.

The appellant was convicted at Cardiff Crown Court of ten historical sexual offences against two complainants, committed when he was aged 13 to 15. The offences included indecent assault on a male under section 15 and buggery under section 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956.

An extended sentence was imposed for one count of buggery, and sentences for five indecent assaults exceeded the maximum available for a child offender. The appeal concerned the legality of the extended sentence and whether the sentences imposed for the indecent assaults were excessive.

1. Extension of time and leave to appeal were granted. The appeal was allowed in part. The extended sentence on count 9 was unlawful because buggery under section 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 was not a specified sexual offence in Part 2 of Schedule 18 to the Sentencing Act 2020. The finding of dangerousness could not cure that statutory defect.
2. The statutory conditions for an extended sentence were cumulative. They included a specified sexual offence, the relevant significant risk of serious harm, the offender’s age, the absence of another mandatory sentence, and satisfaction of either the earlier-offence condition or the four-year term condition. Individual sentences could be aggregated under totality to meet the four-year term condition, but consecutive sentences could not be imposed solely to create that term, as explained in R v Pinnell (2010) and R v Camara (2022).
3. Section 15 indecent assault offences were specified offences. However, the maximum sentence for a child offender depended on age: four months’ detention for an offender aged 14 and 12 months’ detention for an offender aged 15. The court had to determine the applicable maximum from the evidence. Under the guidance applied in R v Ahmed [2023] EWCA Crim 281, the historic maximum could be exceeded only for good reason. No such reason had been shown.
4. The sentences on counts 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 were quashed and replaced with four months’ detention on each count, consecutive to each other but concurrent with the buggery sentences. The sentence on count 9 was quashed and replaced with seven years and six months’ custody. The no-separate-penalty order on count 10 was quashed and seven years and six months’ custody imposed.
5. The total sentence was therefore seven years and six months. The court did not retrospectively determine whether an extended sentence could have been imposed for the section 15 offences, since full argument had not been heard on whether there was good reason to exceed the historic maximum.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Extension of time and leave to appeal were granted. Several sentences were quashed and replaced, reducing the total sentence to seven years and six months.
• Cardiff Crown Court: The appellant was convicted on 16 June 2021 and sentenced by HHJ Michael Fitton KC.