CA (Crim Div) (Singh LJ, Yip J, Judge Deborah Taylor)
2 November 2018
A total sentence of 13 years and two months’ imprisonment imposed following a trial of a step-father for four historic sexual offences against his step-daughter was manifestly excessive where the judge had both ordered all sentences to run consecutively, as well as imposing sentences at the higher end of the scale. It was replaced with a sentence of 11 years and two months’ imprisonment.
CA (Crim Div) (Treacy LJ, McGowan J, Judge Brown)
16 November 2017
A well-known celebrity had his conviction for a historic offence of indecent assault quashed where fresh evidence undermined the credibility of one of the key prosecution witnesses. However, the court upheld the offender’s convictions for another 11 counts of indecent assault.
CA (Crim Div) (McCombe LJ, Openshaw J, Haddon-Cave J)
7 November 2017
The appellant’s conviction for indecent assault was rendered unsafe by directions of the trial judge which were unduly favourable to the complainant.
CA (NI) (Morgan LCJ, Weir LJ, McBride J)
14 June 2017
A minimum term of 10 years’ imprisonment, equating to a determinate sentence of 20 years, imposed in respect of a life sentence following an offender’s conviction for historical offences of rape and indecent assault, was reduced to six years to reflect the principle of totality of sentence. The offender had previously been sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment for similar sexual offences committed close in time to the index offences, which effectively equated to a total sentence before reduction of 32 years.
CA (Crim Div) (Davis LJ, King J, Andrews J)
26 May 2017
A 17-year extended sentence imposed on an offender who had grossly abused his position of trust as deputy principal of a children’s home in subjecting young boys in his care to repeated sexual abuse was unduly lenient. Given the scale and frequency of the offending, which was akin to a campaign of rape, an extended sentence of 22 years was appropriate.
CA (Crim Div) (Rafferty LJ, Cheema-Grubb J, Judge Pegden QC)
23 March 2017
In a trial relating to historic offences of indecent assault, the judge had rightly allowed a witness, who had witnessed the alleged offences, to give evidence that she has also been inappropriately sexually touched by the appellant. The judge correctly directed the jury that her evidence did not go to propensity, but that it was potentially relevant to an important matter in issue.
CA (Crim Div) (Flaux LJ, Popplewell J, Sir Kenneth Parker)
17 March 2017
A total sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment was appropriate in respect of 29 historical sex offences where an offender had carried out a sustained campaign of very serious abuse against his younger stepbrothers for about seven years, starting when the victims were only 9 years old, and involving a gross abuse of trust.
CA (Crim Div) (Lindblom LJ, Males J, Judge Marson QC)
10 February 2017
A bind-over, or the conduct leading to it, would not necessarily deprive a defendant of his entitlement to an unqualified good character direction. However, the defendant would not be entitled to have a bind-over simply ignored when the judge was considering whether to treat him as a person of good character.
CA (Crim Div) (Simon LJ, Garnham J, Judge Leonard QC)
24 January 2017
There had been no misdirection and no unfairness to a defendant where a video recording of a victim’s achieving best evidence video had been played to the jury a second time at its request. The judge had summarised the defence case that the victim had changed her account, and had not been bound to remind the jury of the detailed way in which the case had been put.
CA (Crim Div) (McCombe LJ, Haddon-Cave J, Recorder of York)
18 January 2017
Guilty verdicts on specimen counts of indecent assault were not inconsistent with not-guilty verdicts on specific counts of indecent assault; the jury had been entitled to accept the victim as a witness of truth as to the offender’s generalised conduct notwithstanding that she had had difficulty remembering the specifics of incidents.