The Court of Appeal has reduced the sentence imposed on an 81-year-old man convicted of 59 indecent or sexual assaults involving 11 complainants between 1964 and 1985.
P.B. had originally received an overall sentence of 11 years' imprisonment with the final five years suspended. That sentence was constructed from consecutive terms relating to different complainants. He appealed both conviction and sentence.
In this ruling, the Court of Appeal dealt with sentence. It accepted that the offending was serious because of its extent, the long period over which it occurred and P.B.'s position of trust.
However, the court found errors in the way the original sentence had been reached. The trial judge had not categorised the level of offending or explained through comparable cases how an 11-year starting point had been selected. The judge also appeared to treat P.B.'s absence of remorse as an aggravating factor. The Court of Appeal said remorse can reduce a sentence, but lack of remorse does not itself increase one.
There were also ambiguities in the factual particulars of the counts. The appeal court held that such ambiguities had to be resolved in P.B.'s favour. It therefore sentenced on the basis that each offence involved non-invasive touching in a classroom in the presence of other pupils.
The court fixed five years' imprisonment as the appropriate pre-mitigation starting point. It then considered P.B.'s lack of previous convictions, his community contribution during 25 years of retirement, his age, ill-health and loss of reputation.
Those factors did not justify a fully suspended sentence. The court imposed five years on each count carrying a ten-year maximum, suspending the final three years. It confirmed one-year terms on the remaining offences and directed that all sentences run concurrently.