The Court of Appeal has replaced the sentences imposed on a man convicted of sexual offences against two nieces, ordering a total of five years’ imprisonment and five years of post-release supervision.
The court, in a judgment delivered on 11 November 2024, found that the six-year headline sentence set for an indecent assault was excessive. It imposed three years on that count and two years on count 6, with the sentences on counts 4 and 5 running concurrently. The sentences on counts 4, 5 and 6 are concurrent with one another but consecutive to count 2. No part of the five-year term is suspended.
The appellant had been convicted in 2022 of offences against the two girls across four incidents over six years. The judgment says one niece was 11 at the time of the incident in count 2 and 17 at the time of count 6. The other was 16 during the incidents in counts 4 and 5, which happened on the same day.
The original sentencing judge imposed five years for count 2 and 20 months on each of counts 4, 5 and 6. The 20-month terms ran concurrently with each other but consecutively to count 2; the final six months were suspended for two years, subject to conditions including that the appellant not train or coach children in badminton or swimming.
On appeal, the appellant argued that the headline sentence was too high and that the sentencing judge had not given enough weight to mitigation, including his lack of previous convictions, work history, health, apology and the effect of imprisonment on his family. He also challenged the consecutive sentence. The respondent argued the sentences were proportionate and that the judge had considered the mitigation and totality principle.
The Court of Appeal said the count 2 offence was serious, citing the child’s age, the uncle-niece relationship, breach of trust and lasting harm. It set a four-year notional sentence, then reduced it to three years and four months to reflect mitigation. The court said accepting a jury verdict after trial did not provide the mitigation available for a guilty plea.
It upheld the 20-month sentences on counts 4 and 5. For count 6, involving the same niece about six years later, the court described the appellant’s conduct as including compelling her to drink alcohol before sexually assaulting her while she was unwell. It set a three-year sentence, reduced to two years and six months, before adjusting the overall terms to give effect to totality.
The appellant must also remain on the sex offenders register for life. Post-release supervision will be under the probation services, and he must comply with its directions and cease all sporting, training or coaching activities involving anyone under 18.