The Court of Appeal quashed a sentence imposed on MO’D for sexually abusing his daughter over a six-year period, finding the original sentence was “simply too low and a substantial departure from the norm”. It resentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment, with the final six months suspended.
The judgment, delivered ex tempore by Ms Justice Kennedy on 21 October 2022, followed an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 to review the sentence for undue leniency. The respondent had pleaded guilty to 31 counts of sexual assault, one count of rape and one count of producing child pornography.
The original sentence included seven years for rape, with the final two years suspended. The sexual assault sentences were four years for offences committed before the injured party turned 17 and three years for those committed after. The sentencing judge ordered the sentences for sexual assault and producing child pornography to run concurrently with the rape sentence.
The Court of Appeal said the abuse began when the injured party was 12 and continued until she was 18. It identified the breach of parental trust, the use of court-ordered access to facilitate the abuse, the provision of alcohol and drugs, the duration and repeated nature of the offending, and its severe impact as aggravating factors. The court also noted that the respondent had recorded the rape on his phone, later telling the injured party he had seen her naked.
The Director argued that the combined sentence did not reflect the gravity of the offending, that the mitigation had been given too much weight, and that some consecutive sentencing was warranted. The respondent argued the sentencing judge had properly considered the factors and that his admissions and guilty pleas merited significant credit.
The appeal court accepted that the sentencing judge had properly identified the aggravating factors. It said signed guilty pleas and admissions merited significant credit, while the respondent’s lack of previous convictions had limited value in a case of this nature. It concluded, however, that the overall sentence amounted to an error in principle and quashed it.
On resentencing, the court set a global headline sentence of 15 years to reflect all the offending, then reduced it to 10 years for mitigation. The sexual assault sentences remained unchanged and concurrent. The court suspended the final six months of the 10-year sentence on the same terms as the original order, imposed five years of post-release supervision on the same conditions as below, and ordered that the respondent remain on the sex offenders register.