Where the victim's age is an element of the offence (e.g., under s 61M(1)), the sentencing judge may still take into account the degree of the victim's youth and consequent vulnerability (e.g., that the victim was 13 rather than close to 16), but must explicitly distinguish this from the bare element. Where the specific age threshold is itself the element (e.g., under 14 in s 91G), no such distinction is available and additional regard to age as an aggravating factor contravenes s 21A(2). A finding that offenders were 'grooming' a victim for more serious offences cannot be made without evidence meeting the criminal standard of proof. Sentencing errors including double-counting, unsupported findings of fact, and factual mistakes regarding antecedents may not result in resentencing where the Court concludes no less severe sentence is warranted under s 6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 11 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 11 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.