R v AB
[2024] EWCA Crim 1028
R v SSH
8 December 2023
[2023] EWCA Crim 1708
Court of Appeal
A man was given an eight-year prison sentence for abusing his stepdaughter. The judges thought the sentence was too long because of mistakes in how the law was applied. They changed it to six years. They also cancelled a separate court fee because of a legal error in when that fee could be applied.
Key Facts
- •Appellant (SSH), aged 57 at trial, convicted of eight counts of sexual activity with a child family member (stepdaughter, aged 14-17) and one count of sexual assault (when she was 18).
- •Offences occurred between August 2012 and August 2019.
- •Sentenced to eight years' imprisonment (consecutive and concurrent sentences) on April 3, 2023.
- •Appellant appealed against sentence.
- •Appellant had been in a relationship with the complainant's mother since the complainant was around 13.
- •Appellant had been a teacher at complainant's school when she was 9.
- •Appellant engaged in controlling and manipulative behavior, including threats of suicide and self-harm.
- •Complainant suffered significant emotional impact, requiring antidepressant and sleeping medication.
- •The Recorder did not explicitly state the sentencing guidelines applied or explain the application of the totality principle.
Legal Principles
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 prohibits publication of information identifying victims of sexual offences unless waived.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992
Sentencing Council guidelines apply to determine the appropriate category and sentence for sexual offences.
Sentencing Council guidelines
Section 52 of the Sentencing Act 2020 requires the judge to explain the reasons for and effect of the sentence.
Sentencing Act 2020, section 52
The totality principle requires that the overall sentence reflects all offending behavior and is just and proportionate.
Case law on the totality principle
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Surcharge) (No. 2) Order 2007 dictates rules for Victim Surcharge Orders.
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Surcharge) (No. 2) Order 2007
Outcomes
Appeal against sentence allowed.
The original sentence of eight years was deemed manifestly excessive due to errors in categorizing offences and application of the guidelines. The court concluded that a total of six years was appropriate.
Original sentence quashed and replaced with a six-year sentence.
Recategorization of offences and reassessment of aggravating factors led to a reduced sentence.
Victim Surcharge Order quashed.
The order was unlawful because some offences predated the surcharge provisions' effective date.