R v Anandarajah Bremakumar
[2023] EWCA Crim 545
R v MJB
24 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1011
Court of Appeal
A dad was given a too-light sentence for sexually abusing his young daughter. An appeals court increased his prison time from four to six years because the original judge gave him too many breaks.
Key Facts
- •MJB (age 38 at conviction, 39 at sentencing) was convicted of two counts of inciting his six-year-old daughter to engage in sexual activity.
- •Count 1: Inciting oral sex (did not occur).
- •Count 2: Inciting other sexual activity (occurred).
- •Offender used pornography, offered cigarettes, and dressed himself and the victim in adult clothing.
- •Offender denied allegations initially, then was convicted after trial.
- •Sentencing Judge (Recorder Kenefick) imposed four years' imprisonment for Count 1 and a concurrent 40-month sentence for Count 2 (total four years).
- •The Attorney General referred the sentence as unduly lenient under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Legal Principles
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992: prohibits publication of victim identifying information.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, Section 3
Sentencing guidelines for inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity (Section 8, Sexual Offences Act 2003). Downward adjustments for incited but uncompleted acts should consider the intended harm and the stage at which the offender desisted.
Sentencing Council Definitive Guideline; R v Reed [2021] EWCA Crim 572
Attorney General's Reference: Test for unduly lenient sentences – (1) Judge's assessment of factors; (2) Sentence outside reasonable range; (3) Exceptional circumstances for referral; (4) Gross error.
Attorney General's Reference (R v Azad) [2021] EWCA Crim 1846
Totality Principle in Sentencing: Concurrent sentences must reflect the overall seriousness of the offending.
Not explicitly sourced, but implied throughout sentencing discussion.
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal granted the Attorney General's reference, finding the original sentence unduly lenient.
The Recorder erred by giving excessive reductions for the incompletion of the oral sex (Count 1) and for mitigating factors. The total sentence of four years was outside the reasonable range.
The original sentences were quashed.
The Court substituted a six-year sentence for Count 1 and a concurrent four years two months for Count 2 (total six years).