R v GS
[2024] EWCA Crim 1215
R v BFZ
19 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 897
Court of Appeal
A dad was convicted of sexually abusing his kids. The judge gave him a suspended sentence. The government appealed, saying the sentence was too light. The appeals court disagreed, saying the judge considered everything properly, even though there was a long delay before the case went to court.
Key Facts
- •BFZ was convicted of four counts of sexual assault of a child under 13.
- •He was sentenced to four 2-year suspended sentences with conditions (300 hours unpaid work, up to 40 days rehabilitation activity, £3500 costs).
- •The Attorney General referred the sentence as unduly lenient under s.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988.
- •The offences involved sexual assault of his two children, C1 and C2, over several years.
- •There was a significant delay (approximately 10 years) between the initial police interview and the charges.
- •The victims provided victim personal statements detailing significant psychological harm, particularly C2.
- •The sentencing judge considered the Sentencing Council guidelines and categorized the offences as 3A, with a starting point of 1 year's custody.
Legal Principles
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992: Anonymity to protect victims' identities.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Canavan [1997] EWCA Crim 1773: Sentencing for specific counts only, not for uncharged or admitted repeated offences.
Canavan [1997] EWCA Crim 1773
Sentencing Council guidelines: Harm and culpability determined by factors in step 1; avoiding double-counting.
Sentencing Council guideline
Stewart [2016] EWCA Crim 2238: The Solicitor General is not bound by concessions made in the Crown Court.
Stewart [2016] EWCA Crim 2238
Chall [2019] 4 WLR 102: Victim personal statements can be used to establish severe psychological harm.
Chall [2019] 4 WLR 102
Attorney-General's Reference No 4 of 1989 [1990] 1 WLR 41: A sentence is unduly lenient if it falls outside the range of reasonably appropriate sentences.
Attorney-General's Reference No 4 of 1989 [1990] 1 WLR 41
Sentencing Council General Guideline: Unreasonable delay in proceedings may mitigate sentence if it detrimentally affected the offender.
Sentencing Council General Guideline
Outcomes
The appeal was refused; the sentence was not deemed unduly lenient.
The Court of Appeal found the judge's sentencing decision to be within the range of reasonably appropriate sentences, considering the specific counts, the harm caused, and the significant delay in proceedings. The Court emphasized the judge's experience and the difficulty of the sentencing exercise. While acknowledging the sentence might be considered lenient, it did not find it to be unduly so.