The Court of Appeal has dismissed P.P.’s appeal against the severity of a sentence imposed for historic sexual offences against five complainants who were children at the time. The court found no error of principle in the sentencing judge’s approach and upheld the overall sentencing package.
P.P. had pleaded guilty to seven counts, including rape and indecent assault. Four other counts were taken into consideration at sentencing. The offences occurred over a period of about eight years, beginning when P.P. was about 12 and continuing until he was about 20. The five complainants were sisters and neighbours of P.P.’s family. The judgment describes offences in and around the family home, including in a garden, a shed and an attic.
The Central Criminal Court imposed consecutive terms of three years and six months for rape and three years for an indecent assault involving anal penetration. Other terms ran concurrently: three years, two years and 15 months, depending on the offences. The resulting sentence was six years and six months, with the final 12 months suspended subject to conditions, including probation supervision and restrictions on contact with the complainants and their families.
In his appeal, P.P. argued that consecutive sentences were disproportionate and that the sentencing judge had not given enough weight to his age at the time, cognitive limitations, remorse and record since the offending. The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the repeated offending against five complainants over an extended period justified consecutive sentences.
The Court of Appeal rejected the grounds. It said the sentencing judge had considered P.P.’s personal circumstances, including his youth when the offending began, intellectual limitations, health, guilty pleas, compensation offer and lack of later convictions. The appeal court said the evidence showed that P.P. knew his conduct was wrong, citing his warnings to complainants not to tell anyone and his efforts to act when adults were absent. It also agreed that consecutive sentencing was appropriate in the circumstances.
The court did not resentence P.P. or alter the suspension conditions. It concluded that the sentences were within the sentencing judge’s discretion and dismissed the appeal.