R v BFZ
[2024] EWCA Crim 897
R v Frederick Ambrose
5 June 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 632
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of sexually abusing two boys years ago. The judge gave him a suspended sentence (no jail time). The appeal court thought this was too lenient because of the severity of the crimes and increased the sentence to four years in prison.
Key Facts
- •Frederick Ambrose, aged 72, pleaded guilty to ten counts of historical sexual offences against two boys (W and C) aged between 8 and 11, between 1981 and 1991.
- •Ambrose was a youth football coach who abused his position of trust to groom and sexually abuse the victims.
- •The offences included indecent assault and indecency with a child.
- •There was a significant delay (4 years) between the police investigation starting in 2017 and charges being brought in 2022.
- •Ambrose had a previous conviction in 2014 for similar offences against other boys at the same football club.
- •The original sentence was two years imprisonment suspended for two years for indecent assault counts and one year imprisonment suspended for two years for indecency with a child counts, with additional requirements of 250 hours unpaid work, 20 days rehabilitation, and a Sexual Harm Prevention Order.
- •The Attorney General referred the sentence to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient.
Legal Principles
Unduly lenient sentence test: A sentence is unduly lenient if it falls outside the range of sentences a judge, applying their mind to all relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate.
Attorney General's Reference No 4 of 1989 [1990] 1 WLR 41
Sentencing for historical sexual offences: The court must make measured reference to the modern guideline (Sexual Offences Act 2003), but is not bound to determine the sentence purely by reference to that guideline, accommodating only the maximum sentence available at the time of offending.
R v Forbes and Others [2016] EWCA Crim 1388
Delay in proceedings: Unreasonable delay, not the offender's fault, may reduce the sentence if it detrimentally affected the offender.
Sentencing Council general guideline overarching principles
Consideration of delay in sentencing: The extent of reduction for delay should be proportionate to its detrimental effect on the offender. A significant delay does not automatically warrant a large reduction, particularly in serious cases.
R v Mboma [2024] EWCA Crim 110; R v Timpson [2023] EWCA Crim 453
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992: Victim anonymity provisions apply.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal quashed the original sentence.
The original sentence was unduly lenient due to an excessive reduction for delay and personal mitigation. The court considered the serious nature of the offences, the abuse of trust, and the lasting impact on the victims.
New sentences were imposed: four years' imprisonment for indecent assault counts and 18 months' imprisonment for indecency with a child counts, to run concurrently (total of four years).
The court determined a reasonable sentence, considering the seriousness of the offences, the limited personal mitigation, and an appropriate reduction for the delay and guilty pleas. The court stated that this reduced sentence accounts for the offender's prior unpaid work.