R v Terence Maurice Burke
[2024] EWCA Crim 1181
R v Ian Featherstone
23 March 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 597
Court of Appeal
A teacher had sex with a student. He got a suspended sentence (no jail time unless he breaks the rules). The government thought the punishment was too light, but the court decided the judge was fair.
Key Facts
- •Ian Featherstone, a teacher, pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual activity with a 16-year-old pupil (C) between March and October 2021.
- •The offences involved digital penetration and sexual intercourse.
- •Featherstone used a social media platform to communicate with C and sent her sexual images.
- •C has been diagnosed with high-functioning autism.
- •Featherstone had no prior convictions.
- •The Crown Court sentenced Featherstone to 12 months' imprisonment, suspended for 2 years, with various requirements.
- •The Attorney General referred the sentence to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient.
- •A victim personal statement was not initially available to the sentencing judge.
- •The judge considered the Sentencing Council's guidelines and mitigating factors (loss of job, marriage breakdown, restricted contact with children).
Legal Principles
A sentence is unduly lenient only if it falls outside the range a judge could reasonably consider appropriate.
Attorney-General's Reference No 4 of 1989
Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 allows for the review of unduly lenient sentences.
Criminal Justice Act 1988
Sentencing guidelines from the Sentencing Council must be considered.
Sentencing Council Guidelines
Sexual Offences Act 2003, Section 16: Sexual activity with a child by a person in a position of trust.
Sexual Offences Act 2003
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 provides lifelong protection to victims, preventing identification.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal refused the application to increase the sentence.
The Court found the judge's sentencing process impeccable. While acknowledging the seriousness of the offences and aggravating factors, the Court also recognized substantial mitigating factors and the judge's careful consideration of the sentencing guidelines and the possibility of suspending the sentence. The judge's decision was deemed within the reasonable range of appropriate sentences.