R E G I N A – v – ELVET HARRIES 16th May 1997 1. MR JUSTICE SMEDLEY: On 14th October last year at the Crown Court at Cardiff this appellant was sentenced for offences of indecent assault on a male, to which he had earlier pleaded guilty. He received sentences of two years’ imprisonment on each count. On counts 2, 3 and 4, which related to one boy, the sentences were two years to be served concurrently. On counts 5, 6 and 7, which related to another boy, the sentences were two years to be served concurrently with each other by consecutively to the sentences on counts 2 and 3, and on counts 8 and 9 two years concurrently to each other, but consecutive to the above sentence, making a total sentence in all of six years. He now appeals against that sentence by leave of the single judge. 2. The appellant is aged 39. He has no previous convictions. He maintained when interviewed that as a boy he himself had been sexually abused, both by his brother and various members of the family. And in about 1973 when he was only 16 he commenced a course of conduct of indecent assault with a young boy who was then aged eight, and a son of a fellow member of the Jehovah’s Witness church, to which the appellant belonged. 3. The indecent assaults took the form of mutual masturbation and oral sex. They continued until the victim was 15, by which time of course the appellant was in his early twenties. 4. Counts 2, 3 and 4 of the indictment represent activity from 1973 to 1981. It was said by the Crown in opening that the effect of these offences had been devastating on the victim, and indeed there was a statement served from that victim, now of course a man who is himself grown up married and with young children of his own, indicating the way in which his life had been affected. At the same time that he was involved in indecent assaults with that young man, the appellant was also indecently assaulting his second victim and counts 5, 6 and 7 are specimen counts representing activity with that second young man which began when he was six and continued until he was 14. They are of a similar nature involving mutual masturbation and oral sex. Finally counts 8 and 9 concerned the appellant’s stepson. In his case they commenced in 1992 when the victim was seven, but they ended in July 1995 when he was nine. In his case the indecent assaults were acts of masturbation and on one solitary occasion an act of attempted oral sex. 5. The appellant was arrested on 20th June last year as a result of a complaint to the police by the first of the victims, who we do not find it necessary to name. In the course of being interviewed he admitted the offences, stating that he had been abused himself as a child and it seemed natural for him at that young age to do it to others. During the course of the interview he volunteered the information regarding the second victim who had not at that time made any complaint to anybody, and certainly not the police. Because of the nature of the complaints made by the man I have called victim no. 1, the police spoke to the appellant’s stepson. He confirmed that he had been similarly assaulted. The appellant admitted assaulting him and said he had been unable to stop himself and acknowledged that he needed professional help. 6. There was before the court a pre-sentence report in which the author felt that the appellant appeared to have no awareness of the consequences of his offending on the victims and felt that the risk of his reoffending was high. There were two psychiatric reports, one by Dr Croy dated 26th September last year, and a further one from a consultant psychiatrist Dr Williams dated 8th October. Both of those psychiatrists felt that there was an element of risk to young boys when the appellant is released. It was suggested that he should be, if possible, in a prison when a Sexual Offender Programme is available, and we have been told that he is about to undergo such help. There were also before the court letters from the appellant’s wife saying that it is her intention to stand by him and another letter, a rather moving letter from his stepson, the victim in counts 8 and 9, who also says that he wants his father home. 7. The learned judge described the offences as very serious. He observed that they covered nearly the whole of the appellant’s adult life since he was 16. He gave him credit for the fact that he had pleaded guilty at the first opportunity and cooperated fully with the police. He accepted that the appellant had made efforts to apologise to the victims in counts 2 to 7 inclusive and indeed letters were produced which he had written to those two young men in April 1996 before the involvement of the police when his activities had been revealed within the community church where he regularly attended. The learned judge felt that it was desirable for the appellant to be placed somewhere within the prison system where he could take advantage of the Sex Offenders Treatment Programme. What is said today is that the total sentence passed was excessive. In granting leave the single judge observed that given the level of cooperation and the plea of guilty at the first opportunity it may be that the mitigation was not fully reflected in the length of the total sentence. As we have indicated, the appellant was very frank with the police in the course of his interviews. He admitted offences which had taken place some 20 years before. He identified the second of the victims in circumstances where it was unlikely that had he not done so any charges would have been brought in relation to his conduct with him and that, despite the unpleasantness of the incidents, there was no violence or threats used to any of the young men concerned, and a suggestion made that the sentences should run concurrently. That is not a course that we feel could properly be taken. These were three quite separate victims. The offences occurred over three distinct periods and in our judgment it is perfectly right that the sentence should be served consecutively. The only question is whether by imposing a sentence of two years’ imprisonment for each of the offences the total of six years is too long. We feel that it is. In our view an appropriate sentence for each of the offences would be 18 months imprisonment, and the sentences on counts 2, 3 and 4 to be concurrent with each other and 18 months’ imprisonment on counts 5, 6 and 7 to be concurrent with each over but consecutive to those passed on counts 2, 3 and 4 and the sentences on counts 8 and 9 to be 18 months’ concurrently with each other, but to be served consecutive. The total sentence in those circumstances becomes one of four and a half years’ imprisonment.