[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Colin B, R. v [2006] EWCA Crim 481 (27 February 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2006/481.html Cite as: [2006] EWCA Crim 481

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2
		27 February 2006

1. LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE: On 8th August 2005, at the Crown Court at Sheffield before His Honour Judge Robertshaw, this appellant pleaded guilty to counts 1-6 and 9-13 of an indictment alleging indecent assault on a female and to counts 7 and 8 alleging rape. He was then sentenced to a term of nine years' imprisonment on counts 7 and 8, other sentences being two years for counts 1-5, three years for counts 9-13 and twelve months for count 6, all concurrent with the nine-year sentence. There were also the usual consequential orders. He now appeals against sentence by leave of the single judge.

2. The sad facts are that the victim was the appellant's natural daughter. When she was 10 years of age, in 1982, he started sexually to abuse her by inspecting her genitals when she was alone. He would come into her bedroom, lift her nightdress and start stroking her vagina, usually at bedtime. He would also go into the bathroom when she was getting ready and start touching her there. He began telling her that she would soon be changing and that her pubic hair would become coarser. On occasions she would roll over in bed and press her body down on the mattress, but he would force his hand underneath her or turn her over. The child was very scared when he abused her and, although she did not want it to happen, she felt that if she did not let him he would start on her younger sister.

3. Over the years matters progressed to him removing his penis. She recalled one occasion when he placed her hand on his penis and made her masturbate him until he ejaculated. He would tell her to keep quiet about the abuse and it was their "special love".

4. As she became older, he started digitally to penetrate her vagina, and the abuse peaked when she was 13 or 14. He would frequently look at her vagina and breasts, and told her she would soon need a bra. He even accompanied her when she purchased her first bra which, naturally, she felt extremely embarrassing.

5. When her periods started he seemed pleased and the assaults took a different form thereafter. He would simulate sexual intercourse with her, and occasionally he would push too hard and insert the head of his penis in her vagina. The assaults continued until she was 16, when she felt strong enough to stop him. That resulted in him going off in a huff and he was sullen towards her.

6. Moreover, there was one final indecent assault many years later. She had left home and was living in her own house when the appellant came out to put up a garden shed for her. He asked her for a cuddle, put his arms around her and pressed his groin towards her. He became aroused and placed his hand on her vagina over her clothing.

7. The victim took an overdose in 2003 and was admitted to hospital. Eventually counselling was sought. That resulted in disclosures of the abuse being made to Social Services.

8. In 2004 she wrote to the appellant asking him why he had abused her. He responded by apologising to her and sending her flowers.

9. There were concerns by Social Services that the appellant was having unsupervised access to the victim's children and that was what led up to disclosure to the police. The victim's husband also spoke to the appellant and told him he was not to see their children on his own.

10. The appellant was arrested in 2005. When interviewed he admitted the offences, save for the allegations of partial penetration of the vagina.

11. In sentencing, the judge said that the appellant was a 58-year-old man of good character, but it had to be noted that these offences went back a long time and were committed over a period of many years. He was entitled to full credit for his pleas to the offences of indecent assault. He had initially not pleaded guilty to the rape offences, but it was accepted there had been an indication he would plead to those offences before he actually did so. Nevertheless he was entitled to rather less credit for his pleas to those offences, counts 7 and 8. His pleas had meant that the victim had not had to undergo the trauma of a trial; and the judge hoped that his full acknowledgment of his guilt would go some way to enabling the victim to put the past behind her. His pleas demonstrated his remorse; but the victim was his own daughter. The starting point for one offence of rape in such circumstances was eight years, and he was entitled to a discount for his plea. However, that was not the end, because the two rapes were but one aspect of a long course of indecent assaults committed by him against his little girl. The judge further said that parenthood was a huge privilege and it also involved huge trust and responsibility. He had abused that trust in the most serious way imaginable by the sexual assaults he perpetrated against her for his own selfish sexual gratification.

12. The appeal comes before this court with the leave of the single judge.

13. Mr Thackray on the appellant's behalf has submitted that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that either the starting point was too high or there had been insufficient credit for a guilty plea. He submitted that the starting point should be no more than ten years and that, in the light of the guilty pleas, a sentence of about seven-and-a-half years was suitable. He emphasised that this appellant had shown genuine remorse. He also submitted, with some delicacy, that this was not the worst form of rape that this court would know about.

14. We bear all those matters in mind. Nevertheless, as the judge said, there was a long course of indecent assaults, quite apart from the two rapes, lasting for a number of years. The abuse of trust in this case was quite appalling. Having considered all the matters that have been put before us and having been referred to the well-known case of Millberry [2000] 1 WLR 546, [2002] EWCA Crim 2891, we do not consider that this sentence of nine years can in all the circumstances be regarded as manifestly excessive. This appeal will be dismissed.