Leading criminal solicitor who successfully defends clients falsely accused of historic sex abuse

Jim is a rated criminal defence solicitor who has successfully defended clients accused of historic sex abuse allegations; with over 27 years‘ experience of defending those accused of a serious sex crime, when you instruct Jim you are accessing his expertise, skills and determination to give you the best prospects of achieving a successful outcome.

Some of these cases rely on forensic evidence, such as a DNA match and/or incriminating data recovered from a suspect’s computer or other digital devices, but most are built almost exclusively on the recollection of the complainant.  It may be that there is more than one complainant, or that there are witnesses who provide evidence regarding the surrounding circumstances; the weight of numbers may make a case superficially strong, but in practice, and in Jim’s experience, the fact that 1, 2 or even 15 witnesses all say the same thing (or something very similar) does not mean that they are right. Perhaps they are all lying (this does happen), or their recollections have been tainted by a discussion and confabulation. Whatever the reason, provided sufficient time and effort is expended it is possible to expose the truth for what it is.

How you can defend a false allegation of historic sex abuse

If you want to successfully defend yourself against a false historical allegation you need to face some hard truths early on:

  • The police are not your friend; they will automatically treat the complainant as “the victim”, and you the suspect, or, worse, the perpetrator;
  • Complainants lie: if you are unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end of a false allegation then you obviously already know this; what motivates a complainant to lie is obviously complicated and fact-specific, but rest assured that you are not alone. We know that this happens. Perhaps the complainant is seeking material gain, or using the allegation to cover up other behaviour; the complainant may be motivated by revenge or a need for attention and/or sympathy. The complainant may be mentally disturbed or a pathological liar, or may simply be relabelling consensual sex as rape or assault because of disappointment, shame, and/or regret. Whatever the reason, a forensic analysis of the complainant’s and other witnesses’ evidence will likely expose ambiguities, contradictions and other problematic content, including a ‘thin’ account, narrative contrast, disclosures that are improbable, impossible, nonsensical, behaviour that is counter to reasonable behaviour, language used out of keeping with the rest of the account, or changes in language across the account.
  • Complainants can honestly but mistakenly believe they have been sexually assaulted. False memories may be a result of recovered memory therapy or because of confabulation and/or memory conformity, where the complainant’s memories are distorted and influenced by information reported by others. The fact is that memory errors can occur, and it is entirely possible for a complainant’s memory to be shaped by moulding his/her or another’s actual past experiences to create a fictitious perceived past – the so-called memory illusion.
  • Victims of rape and sexual assault can mistakenly identify their attacker; mistaken identity is a common phenomenon in criminal law and sexual assault victims can and do erroneously identify their attackers; honest witnesses can still be mistaken but the problem is that jurors give very strong credence to eyewitness testimony, particularly where the witness is resolute in believing their identification of the suspect is correct.

It sounds obvious, and it is: to successfully defend any false allegation you need to forensically examine the various witnesses’ accounts and create:

  • A timeline of events;
  • A database of knowledge detail (background information, or “discussable topics” – basically any piece of information that you can probe and investigate).

This is what Jim does, day in, day out.  He has spent 27 years‘ honing his skills and whilst there are various techniques for doing this, to do it right requires time and patience (it takes Jim on average about 7 minutes a page to properly analyse a witness’s evidence).  What you will end up with, or what Jim can provide you, is a tool which will enable you and your legal team to:

  • Identify the information available concerning the police case, the prosecution evidence, the police investigation and the defence case and establish what further information needs to be obtained, from where, in what time frame, and how.  You’ll use this assessment to develop a plan of action and a detailed “wants” list, i.e. specific questions that need answering.
  • Manage your conversations with key individuals so that your requests, questions and responses are guided by a clear plan of action and an agreed.
  • Collect and collate your case information, which will likely be distributed across any number of statements, reports, notes, completed forms, tape recordings, exhibits, transcripts, etc.
  • Evaluate and go “beyond the facts”. Too often those who should know better fail to “pull” all of the case information, or devote sufficient time to extract data that is distributed across the available aggregation of oral or written testimony. Because of this, many fail to detect multiple versions, gaps, mismatches, contradiction and other anomalies. Your analysis must (and what Jim provides will) enable you to:
    • Examine, highlight, identify and understand features, characteristics and attributes of the detail before you, its source, or indeed the entire case, e.g. match/mismatch, the presence and degree of gap, ambiguity, vagueness, contradiction, contrast and variation – in breadth and amount of detail, at one point in time and across a time span;
    • Test the status of specific detail, its source, or the case, e.g. in terms of validity, coherence, plausibility, credibility;
    • Plan further investigation, e.g. to resolve gaps and anomalies in the case, in the evidence or in particular accounts and descriptions.
  • Survey: you must conduct a comprehensive and honest appraisal of your findings and draw conclusions – particularly in terms of the need to revise any given perspective on a particular matter – and identify alternative lines of enquiry or courses of action. You’ll develop case theories and themes, and you must always be alert to the possibility for, and supporting evidence of:
    • Confirmation bias on the part of investigators;
    • The withholding or destruction of evidence by the prosecution;
    • The fabrication of evidence;
    • Prejudice and/or bias;
    • Mistaken identification;
    • An incorrect evaluation of the evidential weight of expert opinion;
    • Contaminated evidence;
    • Faulty forensic tests.

How much will it cost?

Jim charges £350 per hour, plus VAT. You can see how this compares to the guideline figures used by the HM Courts and Tribunals Service when carrying out a summary assessment of court costs.

Note that, even if you win your case, in the crown court you are not able to recover any of your legal costs unless you applied for legal aid and were refused on the means test. Even in those circumstances, the costs you can recover are capped at what your lawyer would have been paid under the legal aid scheme. The position is slightly different in the magistrates’ court or in relation to appeals from the magistrates’ court, where you can recover your legal costs regardless of whether you applied for legal aid or not, but these are capped at legal aid rates (so the amount you recover will in practice be much less than the amount you have spent).

The table below provides a very rough guide of the likely cost of hiring Jim to represent you in a contested case that has reached the court proceedings stage. As a very rough guide, to calculate the number of days divide the total number of witnesses by 3 and round up to the nearest whole number.

If you would like Jim to attend a police station or interview under caution, then he will normally agree a fixed fee of £1,800 inclusive of VAT per attendance.


Graduated table of estimated legal costs, including the advocate's fee and VAT, but excluding all other disbursements
Pages of Material Days in Court
1 day 2 days 3 days 4 days 5 days 6 days 7 days 8 days 9 days 10 days 11 days 12 days 13 days 14 days 15 days 16 days 17 days 18 days 19 days 20 days
1-50 £8,880-£13,620 £15,360-£24,300 £21,840-£34,980 £28,320-£45,660 £34,800-£56,340 £41,280-£67,020 £47,760-£77,700 £54,240-£88,380 £60,720-£99,060 £67,200-£109,740 £73,680-£120,420 £80,160-£131,100 £86,640-£141,780 £93,120-£152,460 £99,600-£163,140 £106,080-£173,820 £112,560-£184,500 £119,040-£195,180 £125,520-£205,860 £132,000-£216,540
51-100 £11,420-£17,220 £17,900-£27,900 £24,380-£38,580 £30,860-£49,260 £37,340-£59,940 £43,820-£70,620 £50,300-£81,300 £56,780-£91,980 £63,260-£102,660 £69,740-£113,340 £76,220-£124,020 £82,700-£134,700 £89,180-£145,380 £95,660-£156,060 £102,140-£166,740 £108,620-£177,420 £115,100-£188,100 £121,580-£198,780 £128,060-£209,460 £134,540-£220,140
101-150 £13,980-£20,820 £20,460-£31,500 £26,940-£42,180 £33,420-£52,860 £39,900-£63,540 £46,380-£74,220 £52,860-£84,900 £59,340-£95,580 £65,820-£106,260 £72,300-£116,940 £78,780-£127,620 £85,260-£138,300 £91,740-£148,980 £98,220-£159,660 £104,700-£170,340 £111,180-£181,020 £117,660-£191,700 £124,140-£202,380 £130,620-£213,060 £137,100-£223,740
151-200 £16,520-£24,420 £23,000-£35,100 £29,480-£45,780 £35,960-£56,460 £42,440-£67,140 £48,920-£77,820 £55,400-£88,500 £61,880-£99,180 £68,360-£109,860 £74,840-£120,540 £81,320-£131,220 £87,800-£141,900 £94,280-£152,580 £100,760-£163,260 £107,240-£173,940 £113,720-£184,620 £120,200-£195,300 £126,680-£205,980 £133,160-£216,660 £139,640-£227,340
201-250 £19,080-£28,020 £25,560-£38,700 £32,040-£49,380 £38,520-£60,060 £45,000-£70,740 £51,480-£81,420 £57,960-£92,100 £64,440-£102,780 £70,920-£113,460 £77,400-£124,140 £83,880-£134,820 £90,360-£145,500 £96,840-£156,180 £103,320-£166,860 £109,800-£177,540 £116,280-£188,220 £122,760-£198,900 £129,240-£209,580 £135,720-£220,260 £142,200-£230,940
251-300 £21,620-£31,620 £28,100-£42,300 £34,580-£52,980 £41,060-£63,660 £47,540-£74,340 £54,020-£85,020 £60,500-£95,700 £66,980-£106,380 £73,460-£117,060 £79,940-£127,740 £86,420-£138,420 £92,900-£149,100 £99,380-£159,780 £105,860-£170,460 £112,340-£181,140 £118,820-£191,820 £125,300-£202,500 £131,780-£213,180 £138,260-£223,860 £144,740-£234,540
301-350 £24,180-£35,220 £30,660-£45,900 £37,140-£56,580 £43,620-£67,260 £50,100-£77,940 £56,580-£88,620 £63,060-£99,300 £69,540-£109,980 £76,020-£120,660 £82,500-£131,340 £88,980-£142,020 £95,460-£152,700 £101,940-£163,380 £108,420-£174,060 £114,900-£184,740 £121,380-£195,420 £127,860-£206,100 £134,340-£216,780 £140,820-£227,460 £147,300-£238,140
351-400 £26,720-£38,820 £33,200-£49,500 £39,680-£60,180 £46,160-£70,860 £52,640-£81,540 £59,120-£92,220 £65,600-£102,900 £72,080-£113,580 £78,560-£124,260 £85,040-£134,940 £91,520-£145,620 £98,000-£156,300 £104,480-£166,980 £110,960-£177,660 £117,440-£188,340 £123,920-£199,020 £130,400-£209,700 £136,880-£220,380 £143,360-£231,060 £149,840-£241,740
401-450 £29,280-£42,420 £35,760-£53,100 £42,240-£63,780 £48,720-£74,460 £55,200-£85,140 £61,680-£95,820 £68,160-£106,500 £74,640-£117,180 £81,120-£127,860 £87,600-£138,540 £94,080-£149,220 £100,560-£159,900 £107,040-£170,580 £113,520-£181,260 £120,000-£191,940 £126,480-£202,620 £132,960-£213,300 £139,440-£223,980 £145,920-£234,660 £152,400-£245,340
451-500 £31,820-£46,020 £38,300-£56,700 £44,780-£67,380 £51,260-£78,060 £57,740-£88,740 £64,220-£99,420 £70,700-£110,100 £77,180-£120,780 £83,660-£131,460 £90,140-£142,140 £96,620-£152,820 £103,100-£163,500 £109,580-£174,180 £116,060-£184,860 £122,540-£195,540 £129,020-£206,220 £135,500-£216,900 £141,980-£227,580 £148,460-£238,260 £154,940-£248,940
501-1,000 £45,860-£65,820 £52,340-£76,500 £58,820-£87,180 £65,300-£97,860 £71,780-£108,540 £73,580-£114,540 £75,380-£120,540 £77,180-£126,540 £78,980-£132,540 £80,780-£138,540 £82,580-£144,540 £84,380-£150,540 £86,180-£156,540 £87,980-£162,540 £89,780-£168,540 £91,580-£174,540 £93,380-£180,540 £95,180-£186,540 £96,980-£192,540 £98,780-£198,540
1,001-1,500 £71,360-£101,820 £77,840-£112,500 £84,320-£123,180 £90,800-£133,860 £97,280-£144,540 £99,080-£150,540 £100,880-£156,540 £102,680-£162,540 £104,480-£168,540 £106,280-£174,540 £108,080-£180,540 £109,880-£186,540 £111,680-£192,540 £113,480-£198,540 £115,280-£204,540 £117,080-£210,540 £118,880-£216,540 £120,680-£222,540 £122,480-£228,540 £124,280-£234,540
1,501-2,000 £96,860-£137,820 £103,340-£148,500 £109,820-£159,180 £116,300-£169,860 £122,780-£180,540 £124,580-£186,540 £126,380-£192,540 £128,180-£198,540 £129,980-£204,540 £131,780-£210,540 £133,580-£216,540 £135,380-£222,540 £137,180-£228,540 £138,980-£234,540 £140,780-£240,540 £142,580-£246,540 £144,380-£252,540 £146,180-£258,540 £147,980-£264,540 £149,780-£270,540
2,001-2,500 £122,360-£173,820 £128,840-£184,500 £135,320-£195,180 £141,800-£205,860 £148,280-£216,540 £150,080-£222,540 £151,880-£228,540 £153,680-£234,540 £155,480-£240,540 £157,280-£246,540 £159,080-£252,540 £160,880-£258,540 £162,680-£264,540 £164,480-£270,540 £166,280-£276,540 £168,080-£282,540 £169,880-£288,540 £171,680-£294,540 £173,480-£300,540 £175,280-£306,540
2,501-3,000 £147,860-£209,820 £154,340-£220,500 £160,820-£231,180 £167,300-£241,860 £173,780-£252,540 £175,580-£258,540 £177,380-£264,540 £179,180-£270,540 £180,980-£276,540 £182,780-£282,540 £184,580-£288,540 £186,380-£294,540 £188,180-£300,540 £189,980-£306,540 £191,780-£312,540 £193,580-£318,540 £195,380-£324,540 £197,180-£330,540 £198,980-£336,540 £200,780-£342,540
3,001-3,500 £173,360-£245,820 £179,840-£256,500 £186,320-£267,180 £192,800-£277,860 £199,280-£288,540 £201,080-£294,540 £202,880-£300,540 £204,680-£306,540 £206,480-£312,540 £208,280-£318,540 £210,080-£324,540 £211,880-£330,540 £213,680-£336,540 £215,480-£342,540 £217,280-£348,540 £219,080-£354,540 £220,880-£360,540 £222,680-£366,540 £224,480-£372,540 £226,280-£378,540
3,501-4,000 £198,860-£281,820 £205,340-£292,500 £211,820-£303,180 £218,300-£313,860 £224,780-£324,540 £226,580-£330,540 £228,380-£336,540 £230,180-£342,540 £231,980-£348,540 £233,780-£354,540 £235,580-£360,540 £237,380-£366,540 £239,180-£372,540 £240,980-£378,540 £242,780-£384,540 £244,580-£390,540 £246,380-£396,540 £248,180-£402,540 £249,980-£408,540 £251,780-£414,540
4,001-4,500 £224,360-£317,820 £230,840-£328,500 £237,320-£339,180 £243,800-£349,860 £250,280-£360,540 £252,080-£366,540 £253,880-£372,540 £255,680-£378,540 £257,480-£384,540 £259,280-£390,540 £261,080-£396,540 £262,880-£402,540 £264,680-£408,540 £266,480-£414,540 £268,280-£420,540 £270,080-£426,540 £271,880-£432,540 £273,680-£438,540 £275,480-£444,540 £277,280-£450,540
4,501-5,000 £249,860-£353,820 £256,340-£364,500 £262,820-£375,180 £269,300-£385,860 £275,780-£396,540 £277,580-£402,540 £279,380-£408,540 £281,180-£414,540 £282,980-£420,540 £284,780-£426,540 £286,580-£432,540 £288,380-£438,540 £290,180-£444,540 £291,980-£450,540 £293,780-£456,540 £295,580-£462,540 £297,380-£468,540 £299,180-£474,540 £300,980-£480,540 £302,780-£486,540

Relevant case law in relation to historic allegations

[2020] EWCA Crim 1363
[2020] EWCA Crim 1363
CA (Crim Div) (Singh LJ, Whipple J, Fraser J)
23 October 2020
The court upheld an offender's convictions for three counts of indecent assault and two counts of sexual intercourse with a girl under 13. The judge had not erred in directing the jury that the offender's previous conviction for theft could be held against him when considering his credibility. Nor had she erred in her directions to the jury or in relation to the admission of complaint evidence.
[2020] EWCA Crim 1247
[2020] EWCA Crim 1247
CA (Crim Div) (Davis LJ, Spencer J, Judge Potter)
1 October 2020

A conviction for a historic count of rape was not unsafe despite serious shortcomings with disclosure of unused material. The judge had been entitled to find that the trial process could compensate for any prejudice arising.

[2020] EWCA Crim 589
[2020] EWCA Crim 589
CA (Crim Div) (Dame Victoria Sharp PQBD, Sweeney J, May J)
1 May 2020

An appeal brought, following a referral by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, on behalf of a deceased husband against his 2005 conviction for the "Lady in the lake" murder of his wife in 1976 was dismissed. Notwithstanding the non-disclosure of relevant prosecution evidence, the strength of the circumstantial case against the husband had been very strong.

[2019] EWCA Crim 2100
[2019] EWCA Crim 2100
CA (Crim Div) (Lord Burnett LCJ, Sweeney J, Sir Roderick Evans)
29 November 2019

In an indecent assault trial which turned on the comparative credibility of the complainant and the defendant, the judge should have given a full good-character direction in respect of the defendant. His failure to do so, coupled with his direction that the jury should treat the unchallenged evidence of the defendant's character witnesses with caution, simply because they knew him well, rendered the defendant's conviction unsafe.

[2019] EWCA Crim 1790
[2019] EWCA Crim 1790
CA (Crim Div) (Hickinbottom LJ, Cutts J, Sir Roderick Evans)
17 October 2019

A sentence of eight years and eight months' imprisonment was just and proportionate following guilty pleas to 13 historic offences of indecent assault of a girl under 16 years where the victims were the offender's step-daughter and adopted daughter who had been abused in their beds at night.

[2019] EWCA Crim 1363
[2019] EWCA Crim 1363
CA (Crim Div) (Leggatt LJ, Popplewell J, Judge Marson QC)
18 July 2019

Convictions for rape and indecent assault were deemed unsafe where a judge had failed to give a jury clear directions as to whether, and if so how, they could rely on the evidence of each victim when considering the allegations made by the other.

[2019] EWCA Crim 1225
[2019] EWCA Crim 1225
CA (Crim Div) (Fulford LJ, May J, Swift J)
12 July 2019

A defendant had received a fair trial in a case concerning historical child sex offences where various pieces of contemporaneous evidence had been lost or destroyed. There was a substantial amount of additional material that could be used to test the reliability and credibility of the complainant, and the judge had given an impeccable direction to the jury to consider whether the defendant had been placed at a real disadvantage when they decided whether the prosecution had satisfied them of his guilt.

[2019] NICA 26
[2019] NICA 26
CA (NI) (Morgan LCJ, Stephens LJ, McBride J)
31 May 2019

A custodial sentence of 9 years and 6 months and a further probation period of one year imposed on a 91-year-old former monk for historical offences of indecent assault, buggery and attempted buggery was unduly lenient, and was replaced with a custodial term of 12 years.

[2019] EWHC 1100 (Admin)
[2019] EWHC 1100 (Admin)
DC (Irwin LJ, Jay J)
8 May 2019

A fresh inquest was ordered under the Coroners Act 1988 s.13(1)(b) into the death of a 14-year-old child in 1966, as new evidence was available which rendered a further inquest necessary and desirable in the interests of justice.

[2019] EWCA Crim 545
[2019] EWCA Crim 545
CA (Crim Div) (Rafferty LJ, Goss J, Sir Brian Keith)
2 April 2019

The jury directions given at the trial of a well-known publicist for historical sexual offences had not been inadequate or unfair, and his conviction for indecent assault was safe.

[2019] EWCA Crim 447
[2019] EWCA Crim 447
CA (Crim Div) (Bean LJ, Sir David Calvert-Smith, Judge Adele Williams QC)
15 March 2019

A judge had been entitled to refuse severance of an indictment, meaning that an offender was tried for historic and recent counts of child sexual offences at the same time. The Criminal Procedure Rules 2015 r.3.21(4)(a) had removed the technical barriers to joinder in appropriate cases: where evidence on one count would be properly admissible on the other as evidence of bad character it was hard to argue that the offender would be prejudiced in his defence by having both counts on the same indictment. In the instant case, the recent counts would have been admissible as bad character evidence at the offender's trial on the historic counts and vice versa.

CA (Crim Div) (Sharp LJ, Goose J, Recorder of Newcastle)
12 March 2019

A judge's summing up had not been so unbalanced as to render a defendant's conviction for buggery unsafe.

CA (Crim Div) (Davis LJ, Elisabeth Laing J, Cheema-Grubb J)
31 January 2019

A total extended sentence of seven years and six months' imprisonment for historic offences of attempted buggery, indecency with a child and indecent assault on a man committed by an individual aged 20-25 against his neighbour aged 10-14, whilst lenient, was not unduly so. Although aspects of the judge's reasoning had been flawed, the offences had very unpleasant features and there had been an element of grooming, no violence had been used.

[2019] EWCA Crim 43
[2019] EWCA Crim 43
CA (Crim Div) (Davis LJ, Robin Knowles J, Sir Wyn Williams)
29 January 2019

Convictions for child cruelty and assault occasioning actual bodily harm were unsafe where a judge had failed to properly instruct the jury in terms of the particulars of the offence of cruelty which alleged cruelty and humiliation conjunctively, and had allowed evidence to be cross-admissible in respect of the offence of assault without giving a tailored and qualified direction in that respect.

[2019] EWCA Crim 31
[2019] EWCA Crim 31
CA (Crim Div) (Gross LJ, Elisabeth Laing J, Cheema-Grubb J)
15 January 2019

A sentence of three-and-a-half years' imprisonment imposed on an offender for historic offences of buggery and indecent assault on a fellow resident at a children's home was unduly lenient. The offender satisfied the dangerousness criteria and a sentence of five years and ten months' imprisonment with a three-year extension period was appropriate.

[2018] EWCA Crim 2693
[2018] EWCA Crim 2693
CA (Crim Div) (Leggatt LJ, Lewis J, Judge Lodder QC)
23 November 2018

Concurrent sentences of two years' imprisonment for historic offences of indecent assault and indecency with a child committed against the offender's sister when he was aged 14-16 were reduced to concurrent one-year sentences. The offender, now over 70, was gravely ill and nearing the end of his life, and the original sentence was, in justice and in mercy, longer than necessary.

[2018] EWCA Crim 2519
[2018] EWCA Crim 2519
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.

QBD (Admin) (Julian Knowles J)
31 October 2018

A 78-year-old man whose extradition to the Falkland Islands was sought in order to prosecute him for 12 alleged historic sexual abuse offences from the mid-1980s was bailed. The unusual features of the case, including the individual's ill-health and his caring responsibilities, and the fact that he had not offended since completing a sex offenders' treatment programme in 2002, meant that the risks of him absconding or committing further offences were minimal.

[2018] EWCA Crim 249
[2018] EWCA Crim 249
CA (Crim Div) (Gross LJ, Sweeney J, Judge Burbidge QC)
16 February 2018

A sentence of 11 years and 10 months' imprisonment imposed in 2016 following a guilty plea to a manslaughter offence committed in 2008 was not manifestly excessive. Although sentences for manslaughter offences such as the instant offender's which involved a knife and gang violence had substantially increased since 2008, there was no untoward effect where the sentencing judge had approached her task in a measured and reflective manner and had correctly applied the current guidelines while staying within the maximum sentence applicable in 2008.

[2017] EWCA Crim 1849
[2017] EWCA Crim 1849
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.

[2017] EWHC 1768 (Admin)
[2017] EWHC 1768 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Gross LJ, Sir Kenneth Parker)
19 July 2017

Although it was not necessary to decide in the instant case, in terms of decisions made by the CPS under the Victim's Right to Review scheme, the court was prepared to assume that a mistake of fact giving rise to unfairness, if made out, was capable of founding a claim for judicial review of a decision not to prosecute a suspect.

[2017] NICA 36
[2017] NICA 36
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.

[2017] EWCA Crim 878
[2017] EWCA Crim 878
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.

[2017] EWCA Crim 393
[2017] EWCA Crim 393
CA (Crim Div) (Hallett LJ, Rafferty LJ, Treacy LJ, Sweeney J, Goss J)
6 April 2017

In appeals against the sentences imposed on two offenders, aged 101 and 96 respectively, in respect of historical sexual offences the Court of Appeal considered the issue of the appropriate allowance to be made for extreme old age in the sentencing process.

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.

[2017] EWCA Crim 307
[2017] EWCA Crim 307
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.

[2017] EWCA Crim 43
[2017] EWCA Crim 43
CA (Crim Div) (Hallett LJ, Stuart-Smith J, Russell J)
26 January 2017

The court reiterated the proper approach to sentencing an adult for sexual offences committed as a teenager.

[2016] EWCA Crim 1941
[2016] EWCA Crim 1941
CA (Crim Div) (Elias LJ, Haddon-Cave J, Judge Dean QC)
6 December 2016

A conviction on 15 historic counts of indecent assault was safe despite some unsatisfactory features of the judge's summing up. The total sentence of fifteen years' imprisonment was reduced to eight years, to take account of the offender's advanced age and poor health.

[2016] EWCA Crim 1777
[2016] EWCA Crim 1777
CA (Crim Div) (Davis LJ, Elisabeth Laing J, Judge Topolski QC)
11 November 2016

A total sentence of 15 years' imprisonment together with an extended licence period of one year was appropriate for historic sex offences committed by a 71-year-old man against his three step-grandchildren.

[2016] EWCA Crim 1988
[2016] EWCA Crim 1988
CA (Crim Div) (Rafferty LJ, Spencer J, Judge Mark Brown)
27 October 2016

A sentence of 12 years' imprisonment imposed following guilty pleas to 24 charges of indecent assault on a male, two charges of indecency with a child under 14, one charge of indecent assault on a female under 13 and two charges of perjury, was increased to 18 years where the offender, a priest and former social worker, had committed a catalogue of offences against 11 victims over decades and where his behaviour resulted in one victim giving evidence at two trials.

[2016] EWCA Crim 1553
[2016] EWCA Crim 1553
CA (Crim Div) (Hamblen LJ, Spencer J, Dingemans J)
29 September 2016

A sentence of 21 months' imprisonment imposed on a teacher following his conviction for six counts of engaging in sexual activity while in a position of trust was not excessive where he had groomed a 16-year old pupil and, on six separate occasions, engineered time alone with her in a classroom. Although some of the lasting harm suffered by the complainant might have been attributable to the full consensual relationship which developed after she left school, that relationship arose directly from the teacher's serious criminality while she was in his care at school.

[2016] EWCA Crim 1388
[2016] EWCA Crim 1388
CA (Crim Div) (Lord Thomas LCJ, Treacy LJ, McGowan LJ, Judge Rook QC)
12 September 2016

The Court of Appeal gave additional guidance on the principles to be applied when offenders were sentenced for historic sexual offences.

[2016] EWCA Crim 1762
[2016] EWCA Crim 1762
CA (Crim Div) (Lloyd Jones LJ, Thirlwall J, Knowles J)
9 September 2016

A sentence of three years' conditional discharge imposed on a police officer for eight counts of indecent assault committed against his sisters-in-law was not unduly lenient. The offending properly fell within category 3B of the relevant sentencing guidelines as to culpability, as it had not involved an abuse of trust in the sense used in the guidelines.

CA (Crim Div) (Burnett LJ, Edis J, Recorder of Birmingham)
21 June 2016

The concept of abduction in harm category 2 of the sentencing guidelines for rape was not a matter of distance. A sentence of eight years' imprisonment following a guilty plea to a historic offence of rape was justified where the offender, who had previous convictions for indecent exposure with intent to assault a female, had raped the victim twice in an incident which had caused her lifelong harm.

[2016] EWCA Crim 815
[2016] EWCA Crim 815
CA (Crim Div) (Elias LJ, Jeremy Baker J, Judge Ford QC)
9 June 2016

A 30-year extended sentence comprising a 22-year custodial element and an eight-year licence period was appropriate in the case of a 61-year-old man who had pleaded guilty to 33 child sexual offences committed against three young girls over a 40-year period.

[2016] EWCA Crim 572
[2016] EWCA Crim 572
CA (Crim Div) (Hallett LJ, Saunders J, Soole J)
7 April 2016

A two-year suspended sentence which had been imposed on the offender following his conviction for two offences of indecent assault on young boys, committed when he was 11 and 14, was not unduly lenient.

[2016] EWCA Crim 2009
[2016] EWCA Crim 2009
CA (Crim Div) (Sharp LJ, Supperstone J, Judge Farrer QC)
18 March 2016

A sentence of eight years' imprisonment was appropriate in the case of a man who had been convicted of indecently assaulting two young girls in the early 1980s.

CA (Crim Div) (Macur LJ, Cooke J, Johannah Cutts QC)
28 October 2015

A total sentence of eight years' imprisonment was appropriate for an individual convicted of four counts of historic sexual offences involving a young child. Two of the counts had been part of the same incident and course of conduct and the sentences on those counts were made concurrent rather than consecutive in order to reduce the total sentence.

[2015] EWCA Crim 1426
[2015] EWCA Crim 1426
CA (Crim Div) (Macur LJ, Green J, Judge Bidder QC)
27 August 2015

ECHR art.7 had not been breached where an offender, sentenced in 2014 to life imprisonment for a manslaughter committed 14 years previously, had had his minimum term determined on current sentencing practice rather than the practice of the courts at the time of the offence. Unlike the minimum term for mandatory life sentences for murder which were subject to the statutory regime in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the calculation of the minimum term in discretionary life sentences for manslaughter was an exercise in judicial discretion.

[2015] EWCA Crim 1501
[2015] EWCA Crim 1501
CA (Crim Div) (Hallett LJ, Jeremy Baker J, Goss J)
6 August 2015

An immediate 15-month custodial sentence imposed on a 68-year-old man in respect of offences of incest and indecent assault which he had committed against his younger sister when aged 15 was replaced with a community penalty. The judge had been misled by not being referred to the relevant guidelines for sentencing youths, and he had not been justified in imposing a far harsher sentence than would have been imposed if the offender had been a 15-year-old boy at the time of sentencing.

[2015] EWCA Crim 1330
[2015] EWCA Crim 1330
CA (Crim Div) (Davis LJ, Edis J, Picken J)
17 July 2015

A total sentence of 16 years' imprisonment was increased to 20 years where a judge had been wrongly advised that his sentencing powers in relation to offences of buggery committed when the offender was under 18 were limited to 12 months' imprisonment.

[2015] NICA 43
[2015] NICA 43
CA (Crim Div) (NI) (Morgan LCJ, Coghlin LJ, Gillen LJ)
24 June 2015

In a criminal case concerning historical sexual offences, the judge had not favoured the prosecution in his directions to the jury, and the appellate court was not left with any sense of unease about the safety of the convictions.

[2015] EWCA Crim 1538
[2015] EWCA Crim 1538
CA (Crim Div) (Fulford LJ, Teare J, Judge Inman QC)
5 June 2015

A sentencing judge had erred in passing sentence for historic offences of indecent assault by referring to a notional sentencing guideline with a starting point midway in the statutory range at the time of the offence rather than adopting the current starting points and the relevant sentencing ranges, subject to the earlier statutory maximum.

CA (Crim Div) (Hallett LJ, Haddon-Cave J, Patterson J)
24 March 2015

It had not been an abuse of process to prosecute an elderly man for an historic offence of sexual assault which had been committed against a seven-year-old family member. The 23-year delay between the offence and trial did not of itself justify a stay of prosecution, and the judge had been entitled to determine that the offender, who suffered from dementia and other physical ailments, was fit to plead and stand trial.

[2014] EWCA Crim 2362
[2014] EWCA Crim 2362
CA (Crim Div) (McCombe LJ, MacDuff J, Judge Morris QC)
5 November 2014

An individual had been incorrectly convicted of a historic offence of rape against a family member because, at the relevant time, anal penetration did not constitute that offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.1. It was appropriate to substitute an alternative conviction for indecent assault, as the facts fell within the scope of s.14(1) of the 1956 Act, and the test set out in R. v Graham (Hemamali Krishna) [1997] 1 Cr. App. R. 302 was satisfied.

[2014] EWCA Crim 2079
[2014] EWCA Crim 2079
CA (Crim Div) (Pitchford LJ, Dingemans J, Judge Rook QC)
24 October 2014

Not guilty verdicts returned by a jury in respect of two of five counts of historic indecent assault did not demonstrate that the judge's refusal to stay the prosecution on the ground of abuse of process due to delay and the consequent loss of evidence was mistaken, or that the verdicts were illogical or in any other way unsafe.

[2014] EWHC 3307 (QB)
[2014] EWHC 3307 (QB)
QBD (Globe J)
10 October 2014

The court granted leave to prefer a voluntary bill of indictment under the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 s.2(2)(b) against the defendant, Gary Glitter, on counts of alleged historic sex abuse. Acknowledging the exceptional nature of its decision, the court held that it was in the interests of justice, and the defendant would not be denied a fair trial by reason of delay.

[2014] EWCA Crim 1933
[2014] EWCA Crim 1933
CA (Crim Div) (Treacy LJ, Sweeney J, Simler J)
4 September 2014

A suspended sentence for seven offences of indecent assault on step-siblings of a very young age, carried out over a protracted period some twenty years earlier, had not been unduly lenient. The interruption to the offender's treatment programme that an immediate custodial sentence would cause, and the potential resulting exacerbation of the situation, amounted to an exceptional circumstance justifying the suspended sentence under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 s.118.

[2014] EWCA Crim 1442
[2014] EWCA Crim 1442
CA (Crim Div) (Rafferty LJ, Burnett J, Elisabeth Laing J)
19 June 2014

A sentence of 10 years' imprisonment imposed for 23 counts of child cruelty contrary to the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 s.1(1) between 1982 and 2000 could not stand in relation to offences committed prior to September 29, 1988 when the maximum sentence was two years' imprisonment.

[2014] EWCA Crim 457
[2014] EWCA Crim 457
CA (Crim Div) (Rafferty LJ, Collins J, Sir David Calvert-Smith)
18 March 2014

New evidence as to a complainant's reliability and truthfulness, which was not disclosed at the trial in 2001 of a man charged with indecently assaulting under-age children and attempted buggery of an under-age boy when he worked at children's homes in the 1970s, would not have affected the safety of his convictions even if it had been admissible.

[2013] EWCA Crim 2587
[2013] EWCA Crim 2587
CA (Crim Div) (Rafferty LJ, Irwin J, Jeremy Baker J)
23 January 2014

A confession which had been relied upon to secure a murder conviction 37 years earlier had been reliably obtained in accordance with police investigation procedures in force at the time. The fact that the police officers involved in the investigation had since acquired bad character did not affect the safety of the conviction either; it was not an invariable rule that evidence of misconduct post-trial in which the integrity of the officer was impugned inevitably led to a successful appeal.

[2013] EWCA Crim 2398
[2013] EWCA Crim 2398
CA (Crim Div) (Pitchford LJ, Mitting J, Judge Collier QC)
20 December 2013

An offender's convictions for historic offences of rape, buggery, attempted rape, indecent assault and murder were deemed safe, as the judge had given the jury adequate directions as to the dangers of delay and its effect on the evidence.

CA (Crim Div) (Sharp LJ, Griffith Williams J, Lindblom J)
28 November 2013

A 30-year delay on the part of a complainant did not render an offender's convictions for indecent assault, indecency with a child, and rape unsafe as the judge had sufficiently dealt with any prejudice to the offender in his summing up and directions to the jury and there had been other evidence that supported the complainant's evidence.

[2013] EWCA Crim 1850
[2013] EWCA Crim 1850
CA (Crim Div) (Davis LJ, Saunders J, Judge Rook QC)
25 October 2013

The court declined to re-open a Court of Appeal decision that a judge had erred in granting, pre-trial, a stay of criminal proceedings relating to historic sexual abuse charges. The defendant had not appealed against the decision but sought to challenge it on the basis that it had been overtaken by subsequent authority. The court had difficulty in accepting that such a challenge could properly be brought, and did not wish to encourage similar challenges in comparable situations.

CA (Crim Div) (Pitchford LJ, Keith J, Blair J)
17 October 2013

A sentencing judge had been entitled to refuse to adjust a sentence for newly discovered offences of indecency with a child by reference to what the overall sentence would have been had all the circumstances been known during an earlier sentencing exercise for similar offences where the offender had chosen not to disclose the extent of his offending.

CA (Crim Div) (Treacy LJ, Hickinbottom J, Nicol J)
10 September 2013

Although the delay in the appellant's prosecution for historic sexual offences was extreme, the resulting missing evidence was not of a degree of cogency that could amount to a finding of serious prejudice in its absence. The trial judge had given the jury appropriate directions regarding the effect of the delay and the appellant's convictions were safe.

[2013] EWCA Crim 1450
[2013] EWCA Crim 1450
CA (Crim Div) (Lord Chief Justice, Rafferty LJ, Macur J)
26 July 2013

A sentence of 15 months' imprisonment imposed for 14 historic indecent assaults was unduly lenient and was increased to one of 30 months. Even though the offender, a highly regarded television and radio presenter with no previous convictions, was 83 years old, in poor health, and had not offended for over 25 years, the original sentence did not reflect the offences' criminality given their lifelong impact on the victims and public concern over sexual crimes against children and young victims.

[2013] NICA 34
[2013] NICA 34
CA (NI) (Morgan LCJ, Higgins LJ, Gillen J)
25 June 2013

In the course of a trial for the indecent assault of a young girl, evidence of the complainant's demeanour had been admitted without it having been established that it was linked to the abuse she alleged. While the jury should have been clearly directed that that evidence did not confirm what she alleged, the absence of such a direction did not render the conviction unsafe.

[2013] NICA 23
[2013] NICA 23
CA (Crim Div) (NI) (Morgan LCJ, Higgins LJ, Girvan LJ)
7 May 2013

A judge had correctly directed a jury on the issue of doli incapax that they could look at the circumstances surrounding historic sex offences to assist them in their assessment of whether a 13-year-old boy had been aware that his acts were seriously wrong.

CA (Crim Div) (Jackson LJ, Globe J, Judge Beaumont Recorder of London)
18 January 2013

Whilst some elements of a total sentence of eight years' imprisonment for 11 historic sex offences were unlawful, because they exceeded the maximum sentence at the date when the offences were committed, the total sentence was appropriate. The unlawful elements were reduced but others were extended to maintain the eight-year total, pursuant to court's power under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 s.11(3), since the offender was not, overall, dealt with more severely.

[2013] EWCA Crim 124
[2013] EWCA Crim 124
CA (Crim Div) (Jackson LJ, Globe J, Judge Peter Beaumont QC Recorder of London)
16 January 2013

It had been open to a jury to be satisfied on the evidence that alleged historic child sexual abuse had continued into the period on the indictment. It was not open to the Court of Appeal to review the evidence and come to a different conclusion.

[2012] NICA 56
[2012] NICA 56
CA (NI) (Morgan LCJ, Higgins LJ, Coghlin LJ)
19 December 2012

In a case involving historical allegations of sexual offending, the judge had not been obliged to warn the jury that they should exercise caution before acting on the evidence of the complainant alone.

[2012] EWCA Crim 2668
[2012] EWCA Crim 2668
CA (Crim Div) (Hughes LJ (Vice President), Ramsey J, Irwin J)
29 November 2012

Although the judge had erred by not applying current sentencing practice when sentencing the appellant for offences of rape and indecent assault committed in 1999, the sentence of 12 years' imprisonment which he had imposed could not be criticised.

[2012] EWCA Crim 2599
[2012] EWCA Crim 2599
CA (Crim Div) (Laws LJ, Griffith Williams J, Males J)
16 November 2012

A sentence of 15 years' imprisonment imposed for 12 counts of committing indecent assault was reduced to 12 years in the light of the maximum sentence for each offence, the sentencing guidelines, the offender's age and disability, and the fact that for a historic offence he would serve two-thirds of his sentence in custody.

[2012] EWCA Crim 2391
[2012] EWCA Crim 2391
CA (Crim Div) (Pitchford LJ, Hickinbottom J, Judge Boney QC)
24 October 2012

A sentence of two years' imprisonment for an offence of wounding with intent where the victim was slashed in the face with a knife was unduly lenient and a sentence of three years' imprisonment was substituted.

[2012] NICA 27
[2012] NICA 27
CA (Crim Div) (NI) (Higgins LJ, Girvan LJ, Coghlin LJ)
29 June 2012

A conviction for murder following a trial 15 years after the victim's death was not unsafe where the outcome of the case depended on a careful assessment of the reliability and credibility of three main witnesses' evidence which was a task for the jury who had received the appropriate directions from the judge.

[2012] EWCA Crim 84
[2012] EWCA Crim 84
CA (Crim Div) (Gross LJ, Eady J, Blair J)
1 February 2012

A judge had erred when imposing an extended sentence for offences of rape and indecency with a child committed prior to the commencement of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.224 and s.227 and the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 s.85. The appropriate determinate sentence was one of 12 years' imprisonment with a direction that the provisions of s.86 of the 2000 Act should apply, with the effect that the offender would remain subject to supervision and recall until the expiry of the 12-year term.

[2011] EWCA Crim 2620
[2011] EWCA Crim 2620
CA (Crim Div) (Rafferty LJ, Mackay J, Judge Loraine-Smith)
20 October 2011

A decision to admit historical evidence of sexual offences in a trial for buggery and indecent assault, concerning the same offender, given the considerable passage of time since the earlier incidents, was not unjust or unfair as the offender had provided a detailed response to the historic evidence.

[2011] EWCA Crim 1607
[2011] EWCA Crim 1607
CA (Crim Div) (Leveson LJ, Keith J, Judge Pert QC)
29 June 2011

Although cross-examination which had invited impermissible speculation by the defendant should not have been allowed, that was insufficient to support a conclusion that his conviction for rape, buggery and indecent assault was unsafe, there being no other basis on which to undermine the jury's acceptance of the significant DNA evidence.

[2011] EWCA Crim 869
[2011] EWCA Crim 869
CA (Crim Div) (Stanley Burnton LJ, Eady J, Foskett J)
1 April 2011

There was no logical inconsistency between an offender's conviction on two counts of indecent assault upon a girl, and the jury's acquittal in relation to the remaining 16 counts on the indictment.

[2011] EWCA Crim 867
[2011] EWCA Crim 867
CA (Crim Div) (Stanley Burnton LJ, Henriques J, Foskett J)
1 April 2011

Deficiencies in a judge's summing up were such as to render a conviction for historic child sex offences unsafe.

[2011] EWCA Crim 1
[2011] EWCA Crim 1
CA (Crim Div) (Pitchford LJ, Sweeney J, Slade J)
13 January 2011

A finding of guilt on one count could not be inconsistent with a failure to reach a verdict on another count as no verdict had been reached on that count.

[2010] EWCA Crim 630
[2010] EWCA Crim 630
CA (Crim Div) (Moses LJ, Rafferty J, Maddison J)
18 March 2010

A judge had erred in ruling at the outset of a trial for offences of historic sexual abuse that a fair trial would not be realistically possible. He should have heard some, if not all, of the evidence before assessing whether the defendant would receive a fair trial.

[2010] EWCA Crim 524
[2010] EWCA Crim 524
CA (Crim Div) (Hallett LJ DBE, Ouseley J, Hickinbottom J)
3 March 2010

A total sentence of 12 months' imprisonment suspended for 18 months imposed following guilty pleas to two specimen charges of rape and two of indecent assault committed against a 13-year-old girl in 1973 was unduly lenient. The sentencing judge had wrongly placed too much weight on the fact that, between the commission of the offences and conviction, the offender had made admissions and been sentenced for similar offences against other children. A total sentence of eight years' immediate imprisonment was substituted.

[2007] EWCA Crim 1669
[2007] EWCA Crim 1669
CA (Crim Div) (Longmore LJ, Nelson J, Dame Heather Steel)
11 June 2007

A judge had adequately highlighted the difficulties a defendant faced in relation to the antiquity of allegations made in a historical sexual abuse case and had correctly directed the jury to look for independent evidence in support of those allegations.

CA (Crim Div) (Hooper LJ, Gibbs J, Roderick Evans J)
24 January 2007

A judge had erred when imposing a sentence by using too low a starting point, and had failed to take sufficient account of the aggravating features of an offence.

[2006] EWCA Crim 756
[2006] EWCA Crim 756
CA (Crim Div) (Rose LJ, Stanley Burnton J, Hedley J)
6 March 2006

In light of a number of propositions derived from authority that should be considered on an application for a stay of proceedings, on the ground of abuse of process due to delay, there was in the circumstances no ground for regarding a conviction as unsafe by reason of the judge's refusal to grant a stay of proceedings.

[2005] EWCA Crim 1792
[2005] EWCA Crim 1792
CA (Crim Div) (Clarke LJ, Hughes J, Dobbs J)
22 June 2005

The appellant had not been prejudiced by delay where he had faced trial on historic complaints of sexual abuse as he had had a number of ways of challenging the victim's evidence other than mere denial.

[2005] EWCA Crim 246
[2005] EWCA Crim 246
CA (Crim Div) (Kennedy LJ, Toulson J, Bean J)
28 January 2005

The absolute discharge of a mentally-impaired defendant following convictions for indecent assault committed many years in the past was unduly lenient in that it failed sufficiently to take into account the interests of the victims.

[2004] EWCA Crim 1831
[2004] EWCA Crim 1831
CA (Crim Div) (Keene LJ, Mitting J, Sir John Alliott)
1 July 2004

Where the defendant abused his position of trust, groomed three young boys and indecently assaulted them over a five-year period, a sentence of five years was unduly lenient, despite his pleas of guilty. Taking into account double jeopardy the sentence would be increased to six years.

[2003] EWCA Crim 2973
[2003] EWCA Crim 2973
CA (Crim Div) (Kay LJ, Poole J, Treacy J)
23 October 2003

The Court of Appeal gave sentencing guidelines for sexual offences. Eleven out of the twelve cases referred by the Attorney-General were held to be unduly lenient and accordingly those sentences were increased.

[2003] EWCA Crim 1392
[2003] EWCA Crim 1392
CA (Crim Div) (Mantell LJ, Royce J, Judge Mettyear)
30 April 2003

In all the circumstances, sentences of 15 months for dangerous driving and three months for contempt of court were manifestly excessive and would be quashed with 12 months substituted for dangerous driving and one month substituted for contempt of court.

[2003] EWCA Crim 5
[2003] EWCA Crim 5
CA (Crim Div) (Mantell LJ, Bell J, Andrew Smith J)
21 January 2003

An eight-year sentence was unduly lenient for two offences of rape where the victim was a child who had been in a position of trust vis-à-vis the offender. A three-year community rehabilitation order was unduly lenient for offences of indecent assault and indecency with a child. A six-month sentence coupled with an extended licence period of two years was unduly lenient for three counts of indecent assault against a child.

[2002] EWHC 244 (Admin)
[2002] EWHC 244 (Admin)
DC (Simon Brown LJ, Scott Baker J)
12 February 2002

It was perfectly proper to use the same material as a base for a criminal conviction and then in civil proceedings to support an anti-social behaviour order, which was akin to an injunction.

CA (Crim Div) (Henry LJ, Rafferty J, Judge Brian Walsh QC)
2 March 2000

Where defendants had absconded between conviction and sentence and were subsequently arrested abroad, they were entitled to some credit for the time spent in custody abroad.

Scroll to top