CRIMINAL DIVISION
The Strand London WC2 |
||
B e f o r e :
(Lord Judge)
MR JUSTICE HENRIQUES
and
MR JUSTICE DAVIS
____________________
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REFERENCE No. 73, 75 & 03 of 2010 | ||
UNDER SECTION 36 OF | ||
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1988 | ||
R E G I N A | ||
- v - | ||
MICHAEL ANIGBUGU | ||
HYUNG-W00 PYO | ||
MARK STUART McGEE |
____________________
Wordwave International Ltd (a Merrill Communications Company)
165 Fleet Street, London EC4A
Telephone No: 020 404 1400; Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr E Garnier QC (the Solicitor General) and Mr R Whittam QC
appeared on behalf of Her Majesty's Attorney General
Mr B Forward appeared on behalf of the Offender
2010/06372/A5
Mr E Garnier QC (the Solicitor General) and Mr E Brown QC
appeared on behalf of Her Majesty's Attorney General
Mr P H R King QC appeared on behalf of the Offender
2011/00306/A2
Mr E Garnier QC (the Solicitor General) and Mr R Whittam QC
appeared on behalf of Her Majesty's Attorney General
Mr S Laws appeared on behalf of the Offender
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE:
Introduction
(1) When a defendant is convicted of rape or a really serious sexual offence in circumstances like these, it is unwise, even after a trial, for the court to pass sentence without seeking at the very least a pre-sentence report. This is no less true for a defendant of good character as it is for one with previous sexual offences recorded against him. Indeed, in some cases it is more important to examine how it has come about that the offence was committed and what underlying problems there may be which have resulted in an individual of good character committing a serious sexual offence. That fact alone may suggest an element of dangerousness which has so far failed to manifest itself. The possibility that a defendant who faces charges like these falls within the provisions designed to provide protection from dangerous offenders should not be overlooked.
(2) Two of these cases reveal how modern technology can be grotesquely misused. A pernicious new habit has developed by which criminals take photographs of their victims -- often just to show off to their friends; often just to add something to the humiliation which the victim is already suffering; and sometimes, as in two of these cases, either as a form of pressure to discourage any complaint (in that sense a form of blackmail), but also possibly for the purposes of blackmail, as is revealed in one of these three cases. Anyone can understand what a powerful lever may be given to the criminal by his possession of photographs taken of the victim when, as in these cases, she has been subjected to degrading treatment. The problem is acknowledged in the Definitive Guideline on Robbery. That guideline was issued after the guideline in relation to sexual offences. We make it clear that from now onwards the taking of photographs should always be treated as an aggravating feature of any case and in particular of any sexual cases. Photography in these circumstances usually constitutes a very serious aggravating feature of the case.
Michael Anigbugu
"There are guidelines. I am going to follow those guidelines. It says that after a trial for rape such as this, for multiple rape, the starting point is a sentence of eight years."
That is questionable as it stands. In any event, guidelines are no more than guidelines. This offence could in no way be described as a rape for which the starting point in sentence could appropriately be dealt with by a sentence of eight years' imprisonment.
Hyung-Woo Pyo
Mark Stuart McGee
_____________________________