Attorney General's Office

New guidance from Court of Appeal following a Reference by the Solicitor General

Today the Court of Appeal increased the sentences of three offenders who sexually attacked women during burglaries in homes they were entitled to regard as 'safe havens'.

Their original sentences were referred to the court by the Solicitor General, Edward Garnier QC MP, to the court as possibly unduly lenient.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, Mr Justice Henriques and Mr Justice Davis ruled that the sentences were unduly lenient. In two of the attacks the offenders took pictures of their victims. The appeal court judges also issued guidance to sentencing judges that the use of photographs taken by mobile phones or digital cameras, increasing the hurt and humiliation of the victim, is to be treated as a seriously aggravating factor.

Welcoming the judgement, the Solicitor General said:

"The Court of Appeal has now made clear that sexual assaults and rapes committed during the course of domestic burglaries will attract a far higher sentencing starting points than previously.

"These three cases were important on their own facts. Each of them was unduly lenient. But, more broadly the Court of Appeal said that the victims sexually assaulted or raped in their own homes suffered not only the attack but also the destruction of the sense of security and safety they were entitled to feel in their own homes."

Michael Chukudi Anigbugu had been sentenced to eight years' imprisonment at Wood Green Crown Court, London for two offences of rape and four years concurrent in respect of two offences of sexual assault by penetration. His sentence was raised to 15 years.

Hyung-Woo Pyo had been sentenced to eight years' imprisonment at Leicester Crown Court for offences of rape, robbery and possession of a bladed article. His sentence was also raised to 15 years.

Mark McGee had been sentenced to six years' imprisonment with an extended licence period of six years for an offence of sexual assault by penetration. He was also sentenced to three and a half years' imprisonment concurrent for an offence of robbery at Truro Crown Court (therefore six years in total). His sentence was raised to fourteen years, six months.

Lord Judge said the home should be "our safest refuge" and that the taking of photos during sexual assaults for blackmail or humiliation was a "pernicious new habit".

ends

Notes:

The Law Officers have the power under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer a case to the Court of Appeal where the sentence is considered to be unduly lenient. This must be done within 28 days of the sentence being imposed. The time limit is mandatory and cannot be extended. It is only sentences for certain more serious offences that can be referred to the Court of Appeal in this way.

If the Court of Appeal finds the sentence to be unduly lenient it can, if it considers it appropriate, quash any sentence passed and impose a higher one. Or the Court may find a sentence unduly lenient but decide that it is not appropriate to alter it, perhaps because of developments since the sentence was referred or, on occasion, where an offender has shown good progress in complying with a community based penalty and it is believed that little would be achieved by placing the offender in custody at that stage.

The Law Officers can also examine the length of the minimum term imposed in relation to an indeterminate sentence.

Cases are usually referred to the Law Officers by the Crown Prosecution Service but it is open also to victims, their families, members of the public and MPs to ask the Attorney General to consider whether a sentence could be unduly lenient.

For the Law Officers to be able to refer a case they must be satisfied that the sentence passed was unduly lenient. That is to say, they must be satisfied it falls significantly below the sentence that any judge could reasonably have passed, having regard to the law.

Figures for the ULS cases considered in 2009 can be found on this website under Unduly Lenient Sentences