R v DCB
[2024] EWCA Crim 554
R v LN
7 March 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 371
Court of Appeal
A doctor was given a long prison sentence for abusing children. The court agreed the sentence was fair but changed how it was organized, and explained when he could be released.
Key Facts
- •The applicant, a 79-year-old GP, pleaded guilty to a series of sexual offences against two child victims (D and A) who were members of his extended family.
- •The offences, committed over several years, included touching, penetration, and forcing the victim to engage in sexual acts.
- •The offences occurred before the Sexual Offences Act 2003, but the sentencing judge considered the equivalent modern offences.
- •The applicant was sentenced to 15½ years' imprisonment with two additional years on licence.
- •The applicant appealed against the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive.
Legal Principles
Reporting restrictions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 apply to prevent identification of victims.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Sentences for sexual offences committed before the Sexual Offences Act 2003 must not exceed the maxima available at the time, but sentencing guidelines for equivalent modern offences should be considered.
Sexual Offences Act 1956, Indecency with Children Act 1960, Sentencing Code
A sentence under section 278 of the Sentencing Code is a single, indivisible sentence comprising a custodial term and an extension period.
R v LF [2016] EWCA Crim 561
When sentencing involves a mix of standard determinate sentences and section 278 sentences, the determinate sentences should be pronounced first, with section 278 sentences consecutive.
R v Ulhaqdad [2017] EWCA Crim 1216
The effect of release provisions (e.g., parole eligibility) is irrelevant to setting the overall sentence.
R v Patel [2021] EWCA Crim 231
Outcomes
The appeal against the length of the sentence was dismissed.
The court found the sentence was not manifestly excessive, considering the gravity of the offences, the abuse of trust, and the harm caused to the victim.
The structure of the sentence was amended.
The court corrected the judge's error in structuring the sentence under section 278, clarifying that determinate and extended sentences should be pronounced separately.
The parole eligibility date was clarified.
The court calculated the applicant's parole eligibility date based on the corrected sentence structure and relevant legislation.