R v AB
[2024] EWCA Crim 1028
R v Jaspreet Singh
15 February 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 259
Court of Appeal
A man was convicted of sexually assaulting and communicating inappropriately with a child. The judge gave him a 3-year sentence but made mistakes, using unverified threats and counting the same thing twice as a reason for a harsh sentence. The Court of Appeal reduced his sentence to 2 years and 3 months.
Key Facts
- •Jaspreet Singh (appellant) pleaded guilty to four counts of sexual assault of a child under 13 and one count of sexual communication with a child.
- •Offenses occurred between 2019 and 2023, involving the appellant's abuse of trust as he lived with the victim's family.
- •The victim's personal statement, submitted late, contained allegations of threats not previously mentioned in police interviews.
- •The judge relied on the victim's statement in sentencing, including the threats, as an aggravating factor.
- •The appellant received a 3-year prison sentence (30 months concurrent for sexual assaults, 6 months consecutive for sexual communication).
Legal Principles
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 applies regarding victim identification.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Victim Personal Statements should be served in good time to allow for defense objections and disclosure.
Cr PD 9.5.1, Cr PD 9.5.2, Cr PD 9.5.3
Sentencing guidelines for sexual assault of a child under 13 and sexual communication with a child were applied.
Sentencing Guidelines for sexual assault of a child under 13 and sexual communication with a child
Double-counting in sentencing should be avoided; using the same factor (e.g., abuse of trust and location) to aggravate sentence is inappropriate.
R v Perkins [2013] EWCA Crim 323 and implicit in the judgment
The court must consider mitigating factors such as previous good character and the prison conditions in sentencing.
R v Manning [2020] EWCA Crim 592 and R v Ali [2023] EWCA Crim 232
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in part.
The judge erred by relying on late-submitted, unchallenged evidence of threats from the victim's statement as an aggravating factor and by double-counting aggravating factors.
30-month sentence on count 2 reduced to 24 months.
To correct the errors in sentencing identified above.
6-month sentence on count 7 reduced to 3 months.
Sentence should have been based on a single message specified in the indictment.
Total sentence reduced to 27 months imprisonment.
Correction of sentencing errors.