Indeterminate sentence prisoners
| Date | 01 June 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550520917229b |
| Published date | 01 June 2020 |
| Subject Matter | In court |
entitled to conclude that appropriate punishment could only be achieved by
immediate custody. The appeal was dismissed.
R v BRICKNELL, [2020] 1 Cr App R(S) 22.
Devilish sentencing view
Having known V., a vulnerable boy with autistic traits and communication difficul-
ties requiring specialist schooling, from when V. was very young, through being
friendly with V.’s grandparents, B. groomed and took sexual advantage of him from
age 13 to 15, repeatedly engaging in two-way masturbation, showing him por-
nography and sharing alcohol with him. V. eventually disclosed the abuse six years
later. Aged in his mid-50s, B. had two historic and non-relevant prior convictions.
On conviction following contested trial of sexual activity with a child and inciting a
child to engage in sexual activity, he initially incurred sentence of eight years six
months, reduced to seven years the following day after the judge had reflected
further. No PSR had been sought or prepared. In passing sentence, the judge had
described B. as ‘morally corrupt, devilish and devoid of any kind of kindness’ in his
treatment of V. The judge considered that the aggravating factors merited a sub-
stantial increase from the starting point under the 2013 Guideline for a single
offence of that kind, namely, three years (with a range up to six years).
On appeal against sentence, it was argued for B. that the judge had over-
emphasised the aggravating features, using emotive terms to castigate him. The
Court of Appeal agreed that the word ‘devilish’ had been ‘unhelpful’, suggesting
that the sentencer ‘may have lost the sense of proportion ...essential to undertaking
the task of sentencing properly’. While ‘strong, clear language is often appropri-
ate’, that used had ‘crossed the line of what is appropriate’. However, having
regard to the high level of B.’s culpability, particularly V.’s vulnerability, a sentence
was required which was much longer than the suggested starting point for a single
offence. The term imposed post-reflection had been proportionate and could not be
considered manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed.
R v BYRNE, [2020] 1 Cr App R(S) 23.
Indeterminate sentence prisoners
Progression to open: Balancing exercise essential
On conviction of s18 wounding, two robberies, aggravated burglary and two ABH
assaults, committed when aged 17, S. had incurred detention for public protection
(DPP) in 2006 with a five-year minimum term that expired in 2011. Having expe-
rienced a ‘troubled childhood’, he had been involved in extensive offending from
an early age, involving acquisitive property crime, violence and knife possession
and had committed his DPP offences within days of release from a 42-month term
imposed for a series of robberies. Although he had pleaded guilty to these offences
he had since minimised his responsibility, for example claiming that he had been
In court 187
To continue reading
Request your trial