K.E. v. Her Majesty’s Advocate [2016] HCJAC 36

Note of appeal against sentence:- The appellant pled guilty to a number of sexual offences for which he received 2 concurrent cumulo sentences. Charges 1 and 4 related to installing a covert camera in the bathroom of his home, in order to film the genitals of two different children, charge 5 was a charge of sexual assault against one of those children by pulling down her leggings and placing his face on her buttocks and charge 6 related to the possession of indecent images. Charges 7 to 11 were all charges of the use of the covert camera to record adult individuals carrying out acts of a private nature within the appellant’s bathroom. The sheriff imposed extended sentences and discounted the custodial element of the sentences on account of the plea of guilty. In relation to charges 1, 4, 5 and 6 the sentencing sheriff selected a headline sentence of 6 years and in relation to charges 7 to 11 the headline sentence was 5 years. On behalf of the appellant it was submitted that whilst it was accepted that an extended sentence was appropriate the custodial elements selected were excessive having regard to the appellant’s personal circumstances. It was submitted that he was 42 years of age and had no previous convictions and had a level of insight into his offending and recognised the need to address issues in his behaviour. It was further submitted that he had attended counseling in relation to the prevention of sexual abuse off his own back. Here the court considered that the sentence was excessive and allowed the appeal. The court quashed the sentences and replaced them with an extended sentence of 56 months comprising of a 32 month custodial term with a 2 year extension in respect of each group of offences, again to be served concurrently with each other.