R v Paul Ashmore
[2024] EWCA Crim 1083
R v AZV
5 July 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 818
Court of Appeal
A man was given a very long prison sentence (IPP) for a sexual assault. The court decided the judge made a mistake by assuming he'd re-offend, ignoring his difficult past and the fact he hadn't done anything similar in the years before. They gave him a shorter, fixed sentence instead.
Key Facts
- •Appellant pleaded guilty in 2005 to sexual assault under Section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
- •Sentenced to imprisonment for public protection (IPP) with a 15-month minimum term (less 121 days spent in custody).
- •Victim of the 2005 assault (C) was 70 and homeless; appellant was 22.
- •Appellant had a prior conviction in 1999 for indecent assault on his 13-year-old brother (B) under Section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956.
- •Appellant had a difficult childhood, including sexual abuse, learning difficulties, and homelessness.
- •Pre-sentence reports indicated a moderate to high risk of further sexual offending.
- •Judge applied Sections 225 and 229 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in sentencing.
- •Appellant spent over 15 years in prison due to the IPP sentence, with multiple recalls.
Legal Principles
Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Criminal Justice Act 2003, Sections 225 and 229
Rebuttable assumption of significant risk in IPP sentencing.
Criminal Justice Act 2003, Section 229(3)
Assessment of risk in IPP sentencing should consider various factors including nature of offence, offender's history, social factors, and attitude towards offending.
R v Lang [2005] EWCA Crim 2864
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
Judge erred in applying the statutory assumption of risk under Section 229(3) without sufficient consideration of the mitigating circumstances, particularly the appellant's past offense which was deemed to be youthful experimentation and not indicative of a continuing pattern of behavior.
IPP sentence quashed.
The court found it unreasonable to conclude that the relevant risk existed based on the evidence, finding the prior conviction not a reliable indicator of future behavior given its context and the lack of other sexual offenses in the intervening years.
30-month determinate sentence substituted.
This reflects the appropriate sentence for the 2005 offense considering the mitigating circumstances and the guidance from R v Lang.