Sexual harm
| Published date | 01 September 2019 |
| Date | 01 September 2019 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0264550519860339a |
| Subject Matter | In court |
385
confidence in the prison system. Even if prisoners did not use their phones for illicit
purposes, these could be misused by others in that way.
On T.’s appeal against sentence on the basis that the term had been manifestly
excessive (given that the maximum for this type of offending is 24 months) and
would cause him to be separated from his child, who had been born three months
beforehand, the Court of Appeal noted that there are no sentencing guidelines for
this type of offence and commented that the two year maximum sentence inevitably
meant that there was going to be an element of ‘bunching’ – i.e. there is less scope
to draw fine distinctions between one offence and another. A stern penalty ‘is to be
expected’. Whilst it was regrettable that this meant T.’s longer separation from his
child, this recent birth ‘did not mean the sentence was outside the proper range
open to the judge’. The appeal was dismissed.
R v TIMMINS, [2019] 1 Cr App R(S) 39.
Sexual harm
Indecent images: Failing to consider PSR and suspension
Acting on internet intelligence, the police seized electronic devices from K.’s home
that were found to contain indecent images of children, including that of a girl aged
around five or six being subjected to anal rape and the oral and anal rape of a girl
aged eight or nine. Aged in his mid-30 s, K. had incurred three previous convictions
in the period May 2005 to February 2008, mainly for driving-related offences,
none involving sexual offending.
Opting to pass sentence following contested trial without adjourning for a PSR,
the judge indicated that K. should be treated as an individual effectively of good
character but considered the images to be absolutely appalling, falling within
Category A of the relevant Guideline (2013) with a starting point of 12 months and
a range between 26 weeks to 36 months’ custody. Had K. pleaded guilty the court
would have considered suspension of the custodial term, but in the circumstances he
imposed nine months’ immediate imprisonment.
On K.’s appeal against sentence it was argued on his behalf that the sentence
was manifestly excessive when a community order should have been considered,
that the judge had failed to give weight to substantial personal mitigation (K.’s
supportive family and the impact which imprisonment would have on his children
and their financial circumstances given his status as income provider) and that a PSR
should have been considered. In the opinion of the Court of Appeal it was highly
regrettable that a PSR had not been obtained. Further, K.’s plea of not guilty had not
been a good reason for failing to consider suspension of sentence. The sentencer
should have received information about the circumstances of K. and his family and
his response to his sexual offending. A report was still not available but the appeal
has been almost entirely overtaken by events, in that K. had by then served some
four months and 10 days and was going to be released in a few days’ time. Sus-
pension of sentence was thus no longer appropriate. Given that...
To continue reading
Request your trial