[2025] EWCA Crim 1187

THE APPEAL

By this appeal, Clare Evans, who appears for the appellant as she did below, argues that the judge erred in law by taking the maximum sentences available to him as the starting point for each offence. Further, she argues that the final sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.

We did not understand the first argument that the judge had taken the maximum sentence available to him. As already explained, the maximum sentence in law was 10 years' imprisonment, although following the guidelines and this court's decision in Ahmed, the court should not ordinarily sentence in excess of the sentence that could have been imposed on the appellant at the time. That was a sentence of 2 years’ Borstal training that, at least when early release used to be at the halfway mark, was regarded as equivalent to 4 years' detention in Ahmed. On reflection, Ms Evans accepted this point in her oral submissions.

The only other sentence imposed which was the maximum available in the 1970s was the 3 months, reduced to 2 on his plea, for count 2. That, however, was reached by taking a starting point of 2 years' imprisonment. While one would expect a very significant reduction in such sentence to reflect the fact that the appellant was 14 at the time of that offence, we consider that that factor was amply achieved by the sentence of 3 months after trial.

It is true that the judge's sentence, after trial, on count 8 was set at the adult starting point for a category B2 offence under the modern guidelines. That would not have been appropriate for a single offence committed by a teenage boy 50 years ago. But that is not this case and the sentence had to reflect the serious and sustained nature of this offending. On the appellant's own admission, this was one of a substantial number of offences against the older boy, about half of which involved touching under the boy's clothing.

In our judgment, the judge carefully navigated his way through the complexity of this difficult case. The resulting sentence of 21 months' imprisonment for this catalogue of offending was within the range of sentences properly open to the judge and was not manifestly excessive.

Although not argued, we have given consideration to whether the judge should have suspended this sentence. The guidelines give particular guidance as to when a custodial sentence imposed for sexual offences committed by a child or young person should be suspended. Here there were no penetrative offences, but the judge was entitled, in our judgment, to conclude that the overall seriousness of these repeated offences against two different victims committed over a long period of time could only properly be dealt with by a sentence of immediate imprisonment.

OUTCOME

Accordingly, this appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Before leaving the case, we pay tribute not just to the handling of this difficult case by the judge but also to Matthew Barnes (prosecuting counsel in the Crown Court) for the quality of his very helpful sentencing note. It is precisely the sort of assistance that a judge sitting in a busy Crown Court needs from the Bar.

Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof.

Lower Ground Floor, 46 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JE

Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: [email protected]