Ellis, R. v [2022] EWCA Crim 1157 (29 July 2022)

Ellis, R. v [2022] EWCA Crim 1157 (29 July 2022)

The judge erred by reducing the sentence in a mechanistic way to reflect the lower historic maximum, rather than considering whether the sentence was excessive or disproportionate in light of the seriousness of the offence and modern sentencing practice. Given the extreme seriousness and aggravating factors, a sentence at the maximum available (10 years before discount) was justified. The imposed sentence was unduly lenient and required increase.

Citation
[2022] EWCA Crim 1157
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Offender: Raymond Ellis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Reference by Attorney General (unduly Lenient Sentence) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Reference Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentence increased
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Historic Sexual Offences, Unduly Lenient Sentences, Application of Modern Sentencing Guidelines to Historic Offences
Criminal Law Sentencing Historic Sexual Offences Unduly Lenient Sentences Application of Modern Sentencing Guidelines to Historic Offences

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Raymond Ellis

Offender

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Reference by Attorney General (unduly Lenient Sentence) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Reference Under S.36 Criminal Justice Act 1988

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed for historic indecent assault was unduly lenient
  2. 2 Proper approach to calibrating sentence for historic offences with lower statutory maxima using modern sentencing guidelines

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred by reducing the sentence in a mechanistic way to reflect the lower historic maximum, rather than considering whether the sentence was excessive or disproportionate in light of the seriousness of the offence and modern sentencing practice. Given the extreme seriousness and aggravating factors, a sentence at the maximum available (10 years before discount) was justified. The imposed sentence was unduly lenient and required increase.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentence increased

Orders

  • Sentence of five years' imprisonment quashed
  • Substituted sentence of seven and a half years' imprisonment imposed