The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by M. McC. against the sentences imposed for sexual offences against seven children from one family, finding no error of principle by the sentencing judge.
The judgment, delivered on 9 November 2020 by Mr Justice Edwards, records that the appellant pleaded guilty on a full facts basis to 52 representative counts from an indictment containing 187 offences. The counts comprised 17 rapes, 10 sexual assaults and 25 indecent assaults. The offending took place over periods between 1982 and 1999, while the children were aged between seven and 17. The appellant was aged between 15 and 32 during the offending.
In March 2017, the sentencing judge imposed concurrent terms of 20 years for each rape count, nine years for each sexual assault count and four years for each indecent assault count. The sentences were ordered to run from 13 March 2017, with five years’ post-release supervision under the Probation and Welfare Service’s directions.
The appellant argued that the sentences were unduly harsh and that the sentencing judge had given insufficient weight to mitigation, including the absence of other convictions, the time without further offending, his age when the abuse began and rehabilitation. His counsel proposed suspending part of the sentence, potentially subject to treatment or counselling. The prosecution argued that the scale and duration of the offending, and the appellant’s conduct into adulthood, meant the absence of other convictions did not establish good character.
The appeal court accepted that rehabilitation is an important sentencing aim and that a sentence can, in a suitable case, include a suspended period to encourage reform. It found no sufficient evidential basis for that approach here. The judgment said there was no evidence of remorse or an earnest attempt to reform, and no indication that the appellant had gained insight or was willing to address underlying problems. It also noted that the guilty pleas were not particularly early, while recognising that they spared the victims from giving evidence at a contested trial.
The court said the sentencing judge was entitled to consider a life sentence. In choosing a determinate term, the judge had afforded significant leniency, the appeal court concluded. It also rejected the argument for a greater reduction based on age: although some offences occurred before the appellant reached adulthood, he began abusing four of the seven children as an adult. The court dismissed all grounds of appeal. The original sentences and supervision order therefore remained in place.