The Court of Appeal has dismissed J.McD.’s appeal against the severity of two four-year prison sentences for defilement of a child under 15. The sentences run concurrently, with two years of post-release supervision.
The appellant pleaded guilty in June 2019 to two counts under section 2(1) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006. Other indictment charges of rape were discontinued after the Director of Public Prosecutions accepted the pleas. The Central Criminal Court sentenced him in October 2019, backdating the terms to account for custody from 1 April 2019.
The offences occurred in August 2015, when the appellant was 16 and a half and the girl was 12 and a half. The Court of Appeal’s account said he isolated her during the first encounter and made her perform oral sex. He recorded the incident, and associates also took photographs. The video was later sent to a third party. At a later meeting, the court said, he again made her perform oral sex and threatened to show the earlier photographs to members of her boxing club unless she performed oral sex on his co-accused.
The appellant argued that the sentencing judge had given too much weight to his age and too little to mitigation. The appeal court rejected both grounds. It found no evidence that the sentencing judge treated the appellant’s age as an aggravating factor. Although the appellant may have believed the girl was 14, the court said the evidence did not show an equal power relationship or equal consent; it found coercion, particularly at the second meeting.
The court said recording and sharing images of a sexual offence is a serious aggravating factor because it increases the offender’s culpability and adds to the harm to the victim. It concluded the coercion, recording and threat placed the offences in the upper half of the mid-range of seriousness, and that an eight-year headline sentence was within the sentencing judge’s discretion. The judge had reduced that figure by 50 per cent for mitigation.
Mitigating factors included the guilty pleas, the appellant’s minority at the time, his family circumstances and the decision to treat him as having no previous convictions. The appeal court considered the 50 per cent reduction appropriate and dismissed the appeal.