R v Anandarajah Bremakumar
[2023] EWCA Crim 545
R v David Lee Salisbury
10 May 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 551
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of sexually abusing a 14-year-old girl. He appealed his 9-year sentence, arguing the judge made a mistake. The appeals court disagreed, saying the sentence was fair. They also corrected a small mistake the judge made about a court fee.
Key Facts
- •David Lee Salisbury (applicant) convicted of two counts of sexual activity with a child in 2023.
- •Offences occurred in 2006 when the victim (V) was 14 and the applicant was 27.
- •Applicant groomed V and engaged in sexual intercourse on two occasions without protection.
- •Applicant had 74 previous convictions (mostly traffic offences), but no prior sexual offences.
- •Applicant received concurrent nine-year sentences.
- •Applicant appealed against sentence, arguing the judge incorrectly considered V a 'reluctant participant', implying force.
- •The judge incorrectly imposed a victim surcharge, which was later noted as inapplicable due to the age of the offences.
Legal Principles
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992: Restrictions on publishing information identifying victims of sexual offences.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Sentencing Guidelines for sexual offences: Category 1 harm (penetration), culpability level A (grooming, age disparity).
Sentencing Guidelines
Principle of totality in sentencing: The overall sentence should be proportionate to the totality of offending.
Case Law (implicitly)
Outcomes
Appeal against sentence refused.
The court found the judge's reference to V as a 'reluctant participant' did not equate to finding force was used. The two separate offences justified the significant sentence. The overall sentence was not manifestly excessive.
Incorrect victim surcharge overturned.
The court acknowledged the judge's error in imposing the surcharge, noting it was inapplicable given the age of the offences. While a re-pronouncement would have been preferable, it did not affect the appeal outcome.