Search decision and choose filters to show only the results you want
This is a short addendum ruling correcting an error in sentencing within the main judgment reported at [2024] NICC 30 . Determinate custodial sentences were replaced with extended custodial sentences where necessary
[2024] NICC 36 O'Hara J
GENERAL
1. Deterrence means discouraging the offender before the court, and others, from committing offences of the kind in question and/or more generally: paras [8] – [9]
2. Every sentence has an inbuilt element of deterrence (the concept of “general deterrence”): paras [8] – [9] & [11]
3. In some cases the sentencing court may decide that deterrence of the offender and/or the public, in the sense explained in [1] above, requires particular emphasis, the consequence being that a punishment more punitive than would otherwise be merited may follow (the concept of “particular deterrence” / an “expressly deterrent sentence”): paras [11] – [13]
4. In cases belonging to the latter category, adherence to the guidance in QWL paras [102] – [103] is essential: para [14]
5. Where sentencing guidelines decisions of the NICOA incorporate an element of specific (as distinct from general) deterrence, the sentencing court must avoid double counting.
6. “ … an offender’s personal circumstances will rarely qualify to be accorded much weight, particularly in a context where a deterrent sentence is required.” (para [18] quoting QWL para [98] )
THIS CASE
7. In the fact specific context of this case. First, per para [21]
“ … the judge’s approach to the issue of personal mitigation was in substance one of applying an absolute rule and, hence, not compatible with the principles expounded above, in a context of having erroneously declared this to be a case requiring deterrence, without more. The judge should have approached the issue of personal mitigation more flexibly and, having done so, explained the weight which he had determined to allocate to it. The impugned sentencing decision is not to this effect. Furthermore, the judge’s decision is not in accordance with the QWL guidance at paras [102]–[103].”
This passage identifies two material judicial errors. The first error entailed a judicial failure to recognise that the general rule in play viz the need for a deterrent sentence normally entails attributing little weight to personal mitigation factors is not absolute in nature.
8. Second, per para [22]: The COA was influenced by the newly admitted evidence.
Crown Court sentencing remarks – catfishing – sextortion - manslaughter - causing or inciting girls under 13 and between the age of 13 and 16 to engage in sexual activity – blackmail – making, distributing and possessing indecent images of children – causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent - intimidation - sexual communication with a child - offending against 70 victims worldwide – harm inevitably and indisputably huge – assessed as presenting a significant risk of serious harm – victim did not prove on the balance of probabilities that he was the victim of catfishing as a child – no previous record – pleas of guilty – some limited evidence of remorse post 2019 – numerous aggravating factors outlined at para [77] - extensive and worsening offending after his first arrest in 2016 – life sentence imposed – 20 year minimum tariff imposed with concurrent sentences in respect of the remaining counts – 10 year SOPO – disqualified from working with children – disposal order in respect of 13 devices
[2024] NICC 30 O'Hara J