The Court of Appeal reduced the sentences for three counts of sexual assault against three girls, finding that aggravating factors may have been counted twice. It left the sentences consecutive, set the total sentence at nine years and six months, and affirmed four years of post-release supervision.
The judgment, delivered on 24 October 2017, concerned an appeal by M.F. against the severity of sentences imposed in the Central Criminal Court. He had pleaded guilty to six counts of sexual assault involving four sisters who were minors at the time. Their mother was in a relationship with M.F., who lived with the family from August 2002 to February 2004.
Three representative counts concerned repeated assaults on the eldest girl, identified as A, when she was aged 12 to 13. The judgment says these occurred over about 16 months, often daily, and involved threats. The other three counts concerned one-off assaults on her younger sisters, identified as B, C and D, aged 12, 11 and seven respectively.
The sentencing judge imposed concurrent six-year sentences on counts 4, 6 and 9, and consecutive two-year sentences on counts 11, 12 and 13, producing a cumulative sentence of 12 years. A four-year post-release supervision period was also imposed. The sentences were backdated to account for time M.F. had spent in custody in the UK.
M.F. argued that the sentences were disproportionate and that the judge had given insufficient weight to mitigation, including his guilty pleas, remorse and efforts to address addiction. He also challenged the consecutive sentences and the starting points for the three one-off offences. The prosecution submitted that the pleas came after a jury had been empanelled, and that consecutive sentences reflected separate offending against each child.
The Court of Appeal said the six-year sentences for counts 4, 6 and 9 were not challenged and were correct. It found that counts 11, 12 and 13 were serious, but were one-off events, unlike the repeated offending against A. The court said many aggravating factors appeared to have been considered in setting sentences for both groups of counts, creating “an element of double counting”. It concluded there had been an error in principle and quashed the sentences for counts 11, 12 and 13.
The court resentenced counts 11 and 13 to one year each, and count 12 to one year and six months because it was graver. It kept those sentences consecutive to one another and to the concurrent six-year sentences, resulting in a total of nine years and six months. It affirmed four years of post-release supervision, backdated the sentences’ commencement to 1 July 2013, and declined to suspend any part of them.