The Supreme Court dismissed appeals by two men who challenged life sentences imposed for prolonged sexual offences against girls in their families. It held that a sentencing judge must consider mitigating factors, including a guilty plea, but may still impose the maximum sentence where exceptional circumstances justify it.
The appeals were heard together and concerned the effect of section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1999. The court said the provision did not displace the established principle that a guilty plea normally attracts some reduction in sentence. The amount depends on factors including how early the plea was indicated and the circumstances in which it was made.
A maximum sentence despite a guilty plea remains possible in rare cases. The sentencing court must consider all mitigating factors and explain clearly why the circumstances warrant the maximum penalty. The Supreme Court said such cases would be confined to the worst variations of the offence.
The first appellant, identified in the judgment as R. McC, pleaded guilty in 2004 to 20 counts involving sexual offences against two daughters and four nieces. The offences took place between 1986 and 1997. The Central Criminal Court imposed concurrent life sentences for rape and four-year sentences for sexual and indecent assault offences. The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld the sentences in 2005.
The second appellant, identified as D, pleaded guilty in 2003 to 12 sample charges of rape and sexual assault involving four daughters over 20 years. The judgment records that the indictment contained 153 counts. The Central Criminal Court imposed life sentences on the rape counts and five-year sentences for sexual assault. The Court of Criminal Appeal refused to vary those sentences in 2004.
The Supreme Court accepted that both men had mitigating circumstances, including guilty pleas. It found, however, that the prolonged offending involved multiple victims of very young ages and represented an extreme breach of parental responsibility. Those circumstances, it ruled, permitted life sentences despite the pleas.
The judgment also addressed the trial judge’s consideration of parole when selecting life sentences. The Supreme Court said a judge should not use uncertain prospects of early release as a way to give credit for a guilty plea. Parole Board recommendations are advisory, and the eventual time served cannot be predicted with confidence. The court nevertheless dismissed both appeals and left the sentences in place.