The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by V.T. against an 18-month detention sentence for defilement of a child aged between 15 and 17. The offence was committed when V.T. was 15, and he was sentenced on the eve of his 18th birthday.
V.T. pleaded guilty to one count under section 3(1)(a) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006. The Director of Public Prosecutions had accepted that plea and entered a nolle prosequi on an original rape charge. The appeal concerned the severity of the sentence imposed by the Central Criminal Court in October 2020.
The Court of Appeal said the sentencing judge was entitled to conclude that detention was unavoidable. It found the evidence did not suggest the injured party was fully consenting and said her vulnerability while highly intoxicated had been exploited. The court described the incident as culpably abusive in its circumstances, while noting there was no physical violence or coercion.
The appellant argued that the judge overstated the offence’s gravity by referring to a hypothetical five-year adult sentence, and failed to give enough weight to his age, early guilty plea, personal circumstances and the delay before the case reached court. The Court of Appeal rejected those grounds. It said the five-year figure described a hypothetical adult sentence, not the starting point for sentencing V.T. as a child.
The appeal court acknowledged some delay, including difficulty locating the appellant, but found it neither gross nor inordinate. It concluded the sentencing judge had taken the delay into account and that V.T. had received the benefit of being sentenced while still a minor. It also found the judge had considered the guilty plea and other mitigation, including the appellant’s age, lack of previous convictions, remorse and low risk of reoffending. Although the sentencing judge did not quantify each discount, the appeal court said the 18-month term reflected a substantial reduction.
The court also rejected a claim that the victim impact statement contained incorrect information about the injured party’s school absences. It said there was no evidence supporting that claim, no concern had been raised before the sentencing judge, and no application had been made to introduce further evidence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in full. The 18-month detention sentence therefore remained in place.