Julie Whitby, instructed by CPS Thames and Chiltern secures the conviction and sentence of an 84-year-old defendant charged with the interfamilial rape of a child in the 70’s.
At sentencing, the judge commented that the limitations of the sentence regime meant that the length of sentence could not reflect the harm imposed over a lengthy period where a child had been deprived of their childhood. The defendant received a sentence of 13 years with a 2-year extended sentence.
Sentencing guidelines for judges were not formally established until after the Criminal Justice Act 2003, although guideline judgments were used before then. When sentencing for historical offences, judges use current sentencing guidelines to assess the harm to the victim and the culpability of the offender, but they can only impose sentences within the maximum penalty available at the time of the crime.
For example, the maximum sentence for indecent assault on an underage girl has changed over the years. Between 1957 and 1960, it was two years’ imprisonment. This increased to five years in 1961 if the victim was under 13, and again to 10 years in 1985. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 replaced indecent assault with offences like sexual assault and assault by penetration, with maximum sentences of 10 years (increasing to 14 if the victim was under 13) and life imprisonment, respectively.
Despite these changes, the judge’s comments highlight a potential disconnect between the available sentences at the time of historical offenses and the long-lasting impact on victims. This can lead to situations where the judge feels the sentence length is insufficient to reflect the harm caused over many years.
Julie Whitby ➡ https://15nbs.com/portfolio/julie-whitby/
To instruct Julie or discuss our sexual offences team, please get in touch with Glenn.Matthews@15NBS.Com or David.Cox@15NBS.Com
