The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal against sentence by A.B., who was convicted of ten counts of sexual assault and one count of cruelty to a child. The court upheld the eight-year headline sentence for the sexual assaults and the overall sentence of six and a half years’ imprisonment, with the final six months suspended on terms.
The offences were committed between 2011 and 2013, when the victim was aged five to six. The judgment says the appellant was in a position of trust and power over the child. The sexual assaults involved touching the child’s penis under and over clothing; the court noted that the abuse caused pain and, on occasion, bleeding. The cruelty count concerned physical, verbal and emotional abuse. The sentencing judge imposed a concurrent three-year term for that count, which the appellant did not challenge on appeal.
The appellant argued that the sentence was unduly severe. Counsel submitted that the sentencing judge had set too high a headline sentence and had not given sufficient weight to the appellant’s difficult upbringing, psychological difficulties and gender transition, the evidence about rehabilitation and risk of reoffending, or the challenges of custody. The appellant also argued that the judge had wrongly treated the rejection of the jury’s verdict as an absence of mitigation, and that the sentence placed too much emphasis on punishment.
The Director of Public Prosecutions opposed the appeal, relying on the victim’s young age, the repeated offending over two years, the abuse of a position of trust, the violence and the impact on the child. The respondent also argued that the appellant’s circumstances did not show vulnerability to offending through another person’s influence.
The Court of Appeal accepted that the appellant had mitigating circumstances, including a difficult childhood, no previous convictions and challenges associated with gender reassignment. It concluded that the sentencing judge had considered the evidence and reports carefully and had reduced the notional sentence by 25%. The court said the six-month suspension, subject to probation supervision for twelve months, also supported rehabilitation and reintegration.
The appeal court’s central question was whether the eight-year headline sentence for the sexual assaults was too high. It noted that the maximum sentence was fourteen years and concluded that the force used, the victim’s age, the duration and impact of the abuse, and the appellant’s position of trust placed the offending at the upper end of the mid-range. It was not persuaded that the headline sentence was erroneous and dismissed the appeal.