July 15
In December 2019 the defendant was convicted of 21 counts of sexual abuse of five young boys in his care when he was a sports coach between 1977 and 1999. It was not until 2016 that one of the victims spoke about the abuse to the NSPCC who referred the matter to the police. The boys were aged between 13 and 15 and the offences included indecent assault on a male, contrary to section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, buggery, contrary to section 12 of the 1956 Act and indecency with a child, contrary to section 1(1) of the Indecency with Children Act 1960. When passing sentence, the trial judge observed that she had to sentence the defendant in accordance with the sentencing regime applicable today, not at the date of the offence but that she was limited to maximum sentences available at the time the offences were committed. She found that the number, nature and gravity of the offences, the serious breach of trust and the psychological harm caused to each victim gravely aggravated the position but bearing in mind the principle of totality she imposed a total sentence of 30 years’ imprisonment. The defendant appealed against sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive, contending that there had been a failure to make “measured reference” to the current guidelines so that insufficient adjustment to the individual sentences had been made to reflect the principle of totality.
Held, appeal allowed. The term “measured reference” was not intended to prescribe a mathematical exercise, but rather to cause the court to reflect the previous maximum sentence as part of the composition of the sentence based on current guidelines. It had to achieve a proper calibration and thereby some reduction to reflect the statutory maximum available at the date of offending. Despite the conspicuous care with which the judge had approached the difficult sentencing exercise in the present case, there had been a failure to apply measured reference between the current guidelines and the statutory maximum terms in force at the time. Accordingly, applying the principles set out in earlier authorities and making measured reference to relevant contemporary sentencing guidelines in light of the statutory maxima at the relevant time, the total term of 30 years was manifestly excessive. Accordingly, a total of 25 years’ imprisonment was substituted (paras 23–26, 28).
Gordon Stables (assigned by the Registrar of Criminal Appeals) for the defendant.