McKeown, R v [2020] EWCA Crim 1386

WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.Case No 202001179/A2[2020] EWCA Crim 1386
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Before
LORD JUSTICE BEAN MR JUSTICE LAVENDER MRS JUSTICE COCKERILL DBE
Between
REGINACrownV
Between
DANIEL MCKEOWN__________Royal Courts of JusticeStrandLondonWC2A 2LLDate Wednesday 9 September 2020Computer Aided Transcript of Epiq Europe Ltd,Lower Ground, 18-22 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1JSTel No: 020 7404 1400; Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)_________MR R JONES appeared for Appellant. _________J U D G M E N T
[1]granted by the single judge.[2]20 January 2020.[3]public to identify her as the victim of these offences.[4]which the appellant used to visit most weekends.[5]7); and when he was 16 and A was 11 (count 8). The remaining three offences involved A touching the appellant's penis. This happened: when he was 13 and A was 8 (count 4); when he was 14 and A was 9 (count 6); and when he was 16 and A was 11 (count 9).[6]until he was charged on 6 February 2019.[7]sexual and emotional harm to female children.[8]4 years.[9]factor.[10]and the admissions made then. No complaint is made about the amount of the discount.[11]he was 15; and 30 months for the offences (counts 8 and 9) committed when he was 16.[12]began and (iii) insufficient regard was given to the very long delays in dealing with the case.

Paragraphs 6.1 to 6.3 of the Guideline on Sentencing Children and Young People states as

[13]follows:
"6.1 There will be occasions when an increase in the age of a child or young person will result in the maximum sentence on the date of the finding of guilt being greater than that available on the date on which the offence was committed (primarily turning 12, 15 or 18 years old). 6.2 In such situations the court should take as its starting point the sentence likely to have been imposed on the date at which the offence was committed. This includes young people who attain the age of 18 between the commission and the finding of guilt of the offence but when this occurs the purpose of sentencing adult offenders has to be taken into account, which is: • the punishment of offenders; • the reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence); • the reform and rehabilitation of offenders; • the protection of the public; and • the making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences. 6.3 When any significant age threshold is passed it will rarely be appropriate that a more severe sentence than the maximum that the court could have imposed at the time the offence was committed should be imposed. However, a sentence at or close to that maximum may be appropriate."
[14]so, this appeal may well have been unnecessary.[15]2000 because that section does not apply to offences under sections 7 and 8 of the Sexual[16]Offences Act 2003.[17]months.[18]detention and training order or orders for a total of 18 months.[19]was 16 may be appropriate and it is rarely appropriate to exceed that maximum. We do[20]not consider that this is one of those rare cases where that maximum should be exceeded.[21]achieved by immediate custody.

Finally, we mention one small point. In his sentencing remarks the Recorder stated that the

[22]statutory surcharge applied. In fact, it did not, because of the date of the offences.[23]proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground, 18-22 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1JS Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: rcj@epiqglobal.co.uk

Cited in 1 later judgment