The Court of Appeal has refused a Director of Public Prosecutions application to review as unduly lenient an effective nine-year prison sentence imposed on Eoin Vickers for offences involving two complainants, including child defilement and assault.
The court delivered judgment on 11 March 2020. Vickers had pleaded guilty to two counts of defilement of a child under 15, three sample counts of defilement of a child under 17 involving the same complainant, assault causing harm, and one count of defilement of a child under 17 involving a second complainant. The judgment anonymised the complainants as AK and PC.
The offending took place between June 2011 and August 2013. The court described sustained sexual abuse and controlling behaviour toward AK, who was 14 when she met Vickers. It said he used compromising photographs to threaten her, introduced both complainants to heroin, and assaulted AK. The second complainant was AK’s cousin and best friend. The court said Vickers had sexual intercourse with her on two occasions and used her to monitor AK.
In May 2019, the Central Criminal Court imposed headline sentences of 10 years for offending against AK, three years for offending against PC, and two years for the assault involving an attempt to remove AK’s contraceptive implant. After mitigation, the sentences were reduced to eight, two and one year respectively, producing an 11-year term. The final two years were suspended, leaving an effective sentence of nine years.
The DPP argued that the headline sentences failed to reflect the seriousness of the offences and aggravating factors, and that the total sentence and suspension were unduly lenient. The Court of Appeal agreed the offending was exceptionally serious and that the sentence was lenient, indeed “very lenient”. It said the 15-year aggregate headline sentence was not inappropriate, but considered the reduction to 11 years greater than it would have allowed. In its view, a two-year reduction for the guilty plea would have produced a 13-year term before considering suspension.
However, the court said the question was whether the sentence crossed the high threshold for intervention under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, not whether the appeal judges would have imposed more. Given the unusual facts, the sentencing judge’s careful approach and the margin of appreciation afforded to that judge, the court was not persuaded the sentence was so unduly lenient as to require intervention. It therefore refused the DPP’s application. The original sentence remained in place.