ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REFERENCES UNDER SECTION 36 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1988
B e f o r e :
(The Lord Burnett of Maldon)
MRS JUSTICE CUTTS DBE
MRS JUSTICE TIPPLES DBE
|R E G I N A|
|- v -|
Lower Ground, 18-22 Furnival Fleet Street, London EC4A 1JS
Tel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: firstname.lastname@example.org (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr R Morgan-Jones appeared on behalf of the Offender
Crown Copyright ©
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE:
- Penetrating of vagina or anus (using body or object)
- Penile penetration of mouth
In either case, by, or of, the victim".
"In our judgment, what happened here did not fall within category 1 at all. In the circumstances, because the offending did not proceed beyond incitement, it was 'other sexual activity' within category 3. That accords not only with the judge's rejection of the suggestion that the offender's behaviour justified a starting point of five years but also provides appropriate headroom between the sexual suggestion and any actual activity without necessarily engaging upon the exceptional basis for departing from the Guideline."
That offence was a single, high culpability offence. The offender had been sentenced to 180 days' imprisonment, which this court considered to be "entirely appropriate".
"Your offending arises from what was initially a virtuous friendship. It should have stayed that way. You and your victim played sport together, but, as you became better acquainted, what was a virtuous friendship turned into a sexual relationship. You were somewhat naïve and not very worldly wise, but you are the adult in all this and there is one person to blame and one person only, and that is you. You took advantage of a 15 year old girl, and [the] victim impact is severe in this case.
I also saw elements of manipulation and cunning in what you did, and there was a significant element of grooming behaviour which took place here. …"
"Given the severity of the harm concerned, I took the firm view that your offending was so serious [that] only a custodial sentence could be justified. I stepped back, wondering in the end, given your risk and prospects of rehabilitation, whether it had to be an immediate custodial sentence. Not without some hesitation, I decided you could be spared immediate custody, but it comes at considerable cost. If this had been a contested case, 15 months' imprisonment would be right for your overall [sentence]. Giving you 20% credit for plea, a somewhat generous assessment, then 12 months would be the right sentence, suspended for two years."