Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

R v Anthony Douglas Whitelam

[2023] EWCA Crim 1204
A man was convicted of sexually abusing two boys, one when he was a teenager and one later as an adult. He appealed his 13-year sentence, but the court said the sentence was fair because the crimes were separate and serious, even though one happened when he was young.

Key Facts

  • Anthony Douglas Whitelam (appellant, age 70) convicted of 13 counts of historic sexual offences against two child complainants, C1 (age 8-12) and C2 (age 10-14).
  • Offences against C1 committed when appellant was a child (age 15-17).
  • Offences against C2 committed when appellant was an adult (age 37-40).
  • Appellant acquitted on two counts.
  • Sentenced to 13 years imprisonment: 9 years for offences against C2 and 4 years consecutive for offences against C1.
  • Sexual Harm Prevention Order imposed.
  • Appellant required to comply indefinitely with notification requirements under Sexual Offences Act 2003.
  • Appeal against sentence based on the four-year sentence for offences against C1 being wrong in law and manifestly excessive and the overall sentence being manifestly excessive.
  • The judge considered the sentencing regime applicable at the time the offences were committed, in addition to modern sentencing guidelines.

Legal Principles

Sentencing for historic offences committed when the defendant was a child.

R v Nazir Ahmed and Others [2023] EWCA Crim 281

The principle of totality in sentencing.

Sentencing Act 2020, section 278; R v Nazir Ahmed and Others [2023] EWCA Crim 281

Consideration of modern equivalents of offences when sentencing for historic offences.

Sexual Offences Act 2003

Maximum sentences available for child offenders at the time of the offences.

Criminal Justice Act 1961

Outcomes

Appeal dismissed.

The court found that the four-year sentence for offences against C1 was not wrong in law or manifestly excessive, considering the totality of offending and the Borstal training equivalent.

Consecutive sentences upheld.

The court held that consecutive sentences were appropriate given the distinct nature of the offending against C1 and C2, separated by 20 years.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.