A judge had not erred when sentencing an offender to life imprisonment, with a minimum term of 10 years, as a sentence of “last resort” for extreme child sex offences committed over a number of years against his own children. The sentence was also not unduly lenient, despite the minimum term not being increased when the offender was sentenced for further offences which involved the same children being offered to other men for sexual purposes.
An appellant’s convictions for conspiracy to import and supply class A drugs were safe. Decisions taken during the trial by defence counsel to adduce evidence of the appellant’s previous convictions, to call a co-accused as a witness and not to correct an alleged omission from the defence statement were not unreasonable or outside the range of decisions open to competent counsel.
An extended sentence of 18 years and five months, which included a custodial term of 13 years and five months, was appropriate in the case of the appellant, who had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to rob and to three offences of having an imitation firearm with intent.
The judge’s summing-up, in a trial of three defendants on a charge of conspiracy to commit fraud by false representation, was not unfair.
A sentence of 45 months’ imprisonment after an offender’s guilty plea to 13 distraction burglaries targeting elderly and vulnerable victims was unduly lenient. The judge should have applied a 10-year starting point before making a deduction for the guilty pleas, resulting in a sentence of 7 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.