By Linny Folau
“H.B.” (a pseudonym) is serving nine months in prison after pleading guilty to two charges of serious indecent assault on a victim.
Lord Chief Justice Bishop in his sentencing suppressed the identity of the parties, pursuant to section 119 of the Criminal Offences Act.
He stated it was impossible to ignore in his case, a custodial sentence, but he was not persuaded that the comparable sentences helpfully referred to by the prosecution was applicable here.
For Count 1, the head count he judge took take a starting point of 18 months and for Count 2, a starting point of 12 months. “Because of your guilty plea, which was late, but on the other hand it was done at a time where you were facing a much more serious charge, I discount 6 months from Count 1 and suspend 3 months on both Counts. This leaving a remaining 9 months in each Count which is to be served concurrently to each other.”
For Count 1 on serious indecent assault, he imposed a sentence of 12 months imprisonment with the final three months suspended for two years on conditions.
This includes not committing any offence punishable by imprisonment, must complete a life skills awareness course at the direction of the Probation Officer within his one-year suspension period, among others.
For Count Two, a similar sentence was imposed but was made concurrent to be served with the first one, he ordered.
This means the the offender is now serving nine months in prison.
