The Court of Appeal has replaced consecutive prison sentences imposed on L.C. for two offences of engaging in a sexual act with a child under 17 with concurrent three-year terms.
In a judgment delivered on 2 February 2023, the court allowed an appeal against the severity of sentence on the issue of consecutive terms. It quashed the sentences imposed at trial and resentenced L.C. de novo. The three-year sentences are to run concurrently. The judgment states that L.C. remains on the sex offenders register.
L.C. was sentenced on 21 October 2021 to four years’ imprisonment on one count and three and a half years on a second count, with the final 18 months suspended, to be served consecutively. Two further counts of the same offence were taken into consideration. The appeal initially had five grounds, but focused on the consecutive sentence element.
The offences concerned incidents weeks apart in July and August 2016. The injured party was 16 and L.C. was 32 at the time. She was friends with L.C.’s daughter and visited the family home. The judgment describes a progression from compliments and requests for massages to intimate touching and the incidents charged.
In July, the injured party and L.C.’s daughter travelled by bus to L.C.’s house. The judgment says the injured party later went for a walk with L.C. and they had intercourse in a secluded area of a public park. On 24 August, she visited L.C.’s apartment alone; they watched a film, she stayed overnight, and intercourse occurred that evening. The following morning’s incidents were among the counts taken into consideration. The judgment records that L.C. made 120 phone calls to her between July and August.
L.C. denied the offending and was convicted. At the appeal hearing, the court was told that he accepted his guilt. The appeal lawyer argued that consecutive sentences were not required, citing earlier cases. The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the offences were separate in time and pointed to aggravating factors.
The appeal court identified the age disparity, L.C.’s position of trust, his knowledge of the injured party’s age and the impact on her as aggravating considerations. It said the sentencing judge appeared to have relied on the phone contact between the incidents in imposing consecutive terms. But the court found the offences occurred over a limited period, involved one injured party and did not merit consecutive sentencing. It concluded concurrent sentences would reflect the gravity of the conduct and harm.
The court set a notional sentence of three years’ imprisonment. It said L.C.’s acceptance of guilt carried little or no weight and his previous convictions progressively reduced the mitigation available, while noting he had no convictions for sexual offending.