The Court of Appeal quashed the sentence imposed by the Central Criminal Court on a defendant convicted of multiple sexual assaults against his granddaughter, increasing the term from four years (with one year suspended) to nine years’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. The appellate court determined that the original sentence was unduly lenient given the gravity, frequency, and predatory nature of the offending, the significant breach of trust involved, and the minimal evidence of remorse. The Court found the original headline sentence failed to reflect the seriousness of the conduct and gave excessive weight to mitigating factors such as age and health. The appellate decision emphasises the importance of deterrence and proportionate punishment in cases of serial abuse, especially where the perpetrator occupied a role of trust.
sexual assault – sentencing – undue leniency application – Court of Appeal – criminal law – breach of trust – attempted penetration – mitigation – remorse – headline sentence – concurrent sentences – suspension of sentence – probation report – Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990 – Criminal Justice Act 1993 – general deterrence – totality and proportionality in sentencing – review of sentence