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.
A sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment imposed following a conviction for kidnapping was not unduly lenient where an offender with learning difficulties had used minimal force to detain his fiancee for a maximum of ten minutes and where the offence had no lasting effect on the victim, who had been in a relationship with the offender for three years and still intended to marry him.
A sentence of nine years’ imprisonment was appropriate in the case of an offender who had been convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent after carrying out a sustained assault on his tenant.
A sentence of three years and nine months’ imprisonment was appropriate in the case of a man who had been convicted of possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence.
A sentence of two years’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, was unduly lenient for 36 incidents of perverting the course of justice by providing false details on behalf of motorists caught speeding or failing to stop at traffic lights. After allowance for the guilty plea, the appropriate sentence was three years’ immediate imprisonment.