The Court of Appeal dismissed M.R.’s appeal against sentence for four indecent assault convictions but increased the suspended portion of the sentence by five months, from 12 to 17 months. It said the adjustment was limited and reflected unusual circumstances surrounding the delay in hearing the conviction appeal.
The ex tempore judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Birmingham on 9 February 2017. The court said it had dismissed the conviction appeal in a reserved judgment delivered the previous Monday. The hearing addressed only the sentence appeal.
The sentences under appeal were 18 months’ imprisonment on each of two counts relating to the summer of 1980, and four years on each of two counts relating to the summer of 1982, with the final year suspended on each of the latter sentences.
The appellant argued that the sentencing judge had given insufficient weight to his medical circumstances and previous good character, and had wrongly referred to the possibility of guilty pleas to the 1980 and 1982 offences. The Court of Appeal said none of those points, alone or together, justified intervention. It described the offences as very serious and involving a grave breach of trust, and said the trial transcript showed a considerable impact on the injured party.
The court separately considered the appellant’s return to custody. He had been admitted to bail on 28 July 2014 after spending about 17 months in custody, and was then said to be within nine or ten months of his release date. By the time of the sentence appeal, he had been at liberty for about two and a half years or longer.
The court rejected an analogy with sentence reviews for undue leniency, saying a person whose appeal against conviction and sentence failed should expect to return to custody. But it identified unusual circumstances: the bail decision had been made when the full sentence was likely to have been served before a hearing date could be provided for the conviction appeal. The court called that a system failure and said a return to prison in those circumstances would be harsh.
Taking account of updated medical reports and a letter from the R. family, the court increased the suspended portion by five months. The judgment did not otherwise alter the sentences described in the appeal.