The King v ZB
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Keegan LCJ |
| Judgment Date | 05 December 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] NICA 69 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 05 December 2022 |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2022] NICA 69
Judgment: approved by the court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: KEE11990
ICOS No: 19/096420/A01
Delivered: 05/12/2022
IN HIS MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
___________
THE KING
v
ZB
___________
Mr Richard Weir KC with Mr Burns (instructed by Paul Campbell Solicitors) for the
Appellant
Mr Hedworth KC with Ms Walsh (instructed by Public Prosecution Service) for the
Respondent
___________
Before: Keegan LCJ, Horner LJ, McBride J
___________
KEEGAN LCJ (delivering the judgment of the court)
We have anonymised the appellant’s name to protect the identity of the
complainant and so this will appear as the cypher above. The complainant is
entitled to automatic lifetime anonymity in respect of these matters by virtue of
section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992.
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal from a sentence imposed by His Honour Judge Fowler (“the
trial judge”) on 10 December 2021. The appeal is brought with leave of the single
judge, Huddleston J, on three grounds.
[2] The appellant pleaded guilty to grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to
section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and sexual assault of a child
under 13 by penetration, contrary to Article 13 of the Sexual Offences
(Northern Ireland) Order 2008. The appellant was sentenced to a total period of 19
years’ imprisonment plus an extended licence period of five years, the sentences to
run on a concurrent basis.
2
[3] In this judgment the court provides guidance on sentencing for two equally
serious offences on a concurrent basis applying the totality principle.
Grounds of Appeal
[4] The appeal notice is dated 4 January 2022. Whilst it contains seven purported
grounds there are, in fact, as we see it, four core grounds of appeal as follows:
(i) The ultimate sentence did not take into account the principle of totality and
resulted in a manifestly excessive global sentence. This was due to the fact
that the starting point in relation to both offences was too high.
(ii) The court incorrectly identified premeditation and lack of remorse as
aggravating factors.
(iii) The discount provided by the trial judge of 15% for a guilty plea was
inadequate in all the circumstances.
(iv) The appellant should not have been assessed as a significant risk to members
of the public of serious harm.
[5] During the course of the appeal before us Mr Weir KC concentrated on the
first and second grounds of appeal that we have articulated above. These were the
grounds upon which the single judge gave leave. We can immediately say that he
was correct to do so as we see no merit in the other grounds of appeal for the reasons
we will shortly provide.
[6] In truth the only real point in this appeal is whether, applying the principle of
totality, 19 years’ imprisonment is a manifestly excessive sentence for the two
serious offences which the appellant faced. There was no argument made to us that
an extended custodial period for five years was inappropriate although Mr Weir did
not entirely abandon the point. In addition, Mr Weir made some submissions in
relation to the reduction allowed for the plea which we are not attracted to.
[7] In assessing the remaining grounds of appeal, we begin by reference to the
factual circumstances of this case.
Factual Background
[8] The facts of this case are particularly horrific given that the offending
behaviour was directed towards a 12-day old baby.
[9] The appellant is the child’s father. He was in a relationship with the child’s
mother and lived with her and her 2½ year old son from a previous relationship
when the offences occurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial