Court of Appeal considers indefinite sentence for sexual offences

Background of the Case

The Court of Appeal reviewed the case of Steven Sillitto, who had been sentenced to an indefinite term in a young offender institution following his guilty plea to two counts of trespass with intent to commit a sexual offence and possession of a bladed article. The offences took place in 2011 when Sillitto was 19 years old. He was sentenced in March 2012 to protect the public, with a minimum term of three years before parole eligibility.

Legal Proceedings

Sillitto's appeal was heard by Lady Justice Andrews, Mrs Justice Cutts, and Mrs Justice Heather Williams. The appeal focused on whether the indefinite sentence was appropriate given Sillitto's age and the circumstances of the offences. The Recorder at the original trial had not imposed a separate penalty for the bladed article offence, which was considered part of the overall offending behaviour.

Arguments and Considerations

Mr Beechey, representing Sillitto, argued that the Recorder had erred in imposing an indefinite sentence rather than an extended sentence. He highlighted Sillitto's youth and lack of a significant criminal record, suggesting that an extended sentence with a longer licence period would have sufficed to protect the public.

Sentencing Context

The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offences, which involved Sillitto entering a family home and accessing pornographic material before being confronted by the homeowner. The Recorder had deemed the offences serious enough to warrant an indefinite sentence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, considering Sillitto a danger to the public.

Judicial Analysis

The Court of Appeal considered whether the indefinite sentence was excessive or wrong in principle. They noted the difficulties in assessing Sillitto's risk due to his continued denial of sexual motivation, which affected his eligibility for treatment programmes. The court also considered the potential for Sillitto to mature and reduce his risk over time.

Outcome and Directions

The court granted leave to appeal, acknowledging that the points raised by Mr Beechey were arguable. However, they required further information, including a Parole Board report and details of Sillitto's progress in custody, before making a final decision. The appeal was adjourned to allow for the gathering of this information.

Implications for Future Cases

This case highlights the complexities involved in sentencing young offenders for serious crimes, particularly when assessing the risk they pose to the public. It underscores the importance of detailed risk assessments and the potential role of extended sentences in managing public protection.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision to grant leave for a full hearing reflects the ongoing challenges in balancing public safety with the rehabilitation of offenders. The outcome of this case may influence future sentencing decisions in similar circumstances.