What are the sentencing guidelines for sexual offences and how do they work?

If you are accused or convicted of a sexual offence, you will want considered and realistic advice about the sentence you may receive. This advice will be based on several factors: the offence, the particular circumstances of the offence, your personal circumstances, the stage at which you plead guilty or are convicted, and the sentencing guidelines.

Sentencing guidelines are used by the Court to assist in determining the “starting point” for your sentence. They also provide a non-exhaustive lists of factors which will upwardly or downwardly adjust the starting point.

Most serious sexual offences have their own sets of guidelines, including:

1. Rape;
2. Sexual assault;
3. Sexual communications with a child/grooming offences; and
4. Possession of indecent images of a child.

By way of example, the Court would consider the following when looking at the guidelines for sexual assault.

Culpability: the Court would determine the offender's role, level of intention, premeditation, and the extent of planning involved in the offence. The Court would also consider whether the offence was committed in the course of a burglary, whether there was violence or damage involved, whether the offender was abusing a position of trust, and other factors listed on the guidelines. After doing so, and hearing submissions on the issue from the prosecution and defence, the category (the level) of culpability would be determined.

Harm: likewise, the Court would consider the level of harm, by assessing the level of physical and emotional harm to the complainant as well as any financial loss. The particulars of the assault will be relevant here, as which part of the complainant’s body was touched and the circumstances in which it happened will be acutely relevant to harm. Again, the factors that would place an assault into each harm category are listed in the guidelines, and include assessing whether there were threats of violence and whether the assault was prolonged or gratuitously degrading. Again, the prosecution and defence will make submissions on the level of harm during sentencing, which may involve hearing a Victim Personal Impact Statement from the victim. The Judge will determine the category.

With culpability and harm determined, the sentencing guidelines will give the Judge a starting point. The Judge will then consider aggravating factors – some of which are listed on the guidelines, but this list is not exhaustive. Aggravating factors that will upwardly adjust the starting point include previous convictions, and any attempts to target or exploit a vulnerable victim or prevent the reporting of the offence.

Mitigating factors are also listed in the guidelines, including: having no previous convictions or positive character, showing remorse, cooperation with the investigation, or limited role in the offence. Your legal team should have taken detailed mitigation from you and anyone willing to support you in the proceedings. This will allow the defence to make powerful submissions that give the Court a more well-rounded view of the offender.

Finally, the guidelines remind the Judge to make any reductions appropriate for a guilty plea, and consider the over-arching principles of the Justice system and purposes of sentencing.  This includes consideration of totality where there is more than one offence (ensuring the overall sentence reflects the overall offending and no punishment is duplicated). The guidelines also remind the Judge to consider ancillary orders. For sexual offences, this is particularly important and may include notification requirements (the sex offenders register) and DBS barring.

Whilst it is not possible to predict with precision any sentence in a criminal case, sentencing guidelines are extremely important. An experienced legal team will carefully consider your case on the guidelines and provide you with considered, realistic advice about the sentence you face. The guidelines are a useful tool not only for providing advice but providing a structure with which defence teams can argue a lower sentence is appropriate.