R v NRZ
[2024] EWCA Crim 93
R v GS
8 October 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1215
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of sexually abusing a child many years ago. He appealed his sentence, arguing it was too long because the case took so long to get to court. The Court of Appeal said the sentence was fair, even with the delay, because the crimes were very serious and caused lasting harm to the victim.
Key Facts
- •Applicant convicted of one count of causing a child to engage in sexual activity and two counts of indecent assault.
- •Offenses occurred between 1994 and approximately 2004, with the complainant being under 10 years old.
- •Applicant abused his position of trust as he was in a relationship with the complainant's mother and cared for the complainant.
- •Significant delay in the investigation and prosecution of the case (approximately 17 months before the pandemic and further delays thereafter).
- •Applicant sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment with a one-year extended licence period.
- •Applicant appealed against sentence, arguing that the judge failed to account for the delay.
Legal Principles
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992: prohibits publication of information likely to identify victims of sexual offences.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, section 3
Sentencing guidelines for sexual offences should be applied, considering factors like culpability, harm caused, and any mitigating circumstances.
Sentencing Act 2020, section 278 and Sentencing Guidelines
Unjustifiable delay in bringing a case to trial 'may' be a factor in sentencing, but there is no obligation on the court to reduce the sentence due to delay.
R v Beattie-Milligan [2019] EWCA Crim 2367, R v Timpson [2019] EWCA Crim 1785
The impact of exceptional circumstances, such as prison overcrowding, may be considered in sentencing.
R v Aire Ali [2023] EWCA Crim 232
Outcomes
Appeal against sentence refused.
The court found that the judge's failure to explicitly address the delay in sentencing did not render the sentence manifestly excessive. The delay, while significant, was not deemed exceptional enough to warrant a reduction in the sentence, particularly considering the severity of the offences and the enduring harm suffered by the victim.