[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Scott M, R. v [2008] EWCA Crim 1915 (06 August 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2008/1915.html Cite as: [2009] 1 Cr App Rep (S) 88, [2009] 1 Cr App R (S) 88, [2008] EWCA Crim 1915

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		6th August 2008

1. Mr Justice Andrew Smith: On 11th April 2008, the appellant was sentenced to a period of four years' custody for an offence of blackmail to which he had pleaded guilty the previous month.
2. In 1981 the victim made a sexual assault on the appellant when he was aged 11 and caused him a great deal of pain and also injury to the thighs.
3. In August 2007 the appellant went to the victim's house and asked if he remembered him. The two men spoke for some three hours. The appellant said he wanted £5,000 in order to go to Switzerland to end his life. The victim tried to buy time and said he needed 30 days to get the money. The appellant said he would return in a month's time.
4. In fact the appellant returned after two weeks. Again the two men spoke. This time the appellant said he was feeling better, but spoke of having had thoughts of coming to find the victim and doing him harm. There was talk of a payment of £5,000. A few days later the victim gave the appellant a cheque for that amount and the appellant paid it into his bank.
5. After another two weeks the victim received from the appellant a bereavement card on which the appellant had written various messages, for example:

"Thanks for the pocket money. I regard it as an interim payment for damaging my life. 5K for

and:

"You don't deserve to contaminate the oxygen around you, you are a parasite on humanity. Pay me or shake hands with the devil sooner than planned. 30 days."

6. There were further comments making reference to the death penalty and there was some suggestion that the complainant should sell some land to find £50,000.
7. Two weeks later the victim received a second card with further messages, for example:

"I put £50K on the value of your life.

I will come for you. Test me the pain will be yours."

8. The appellant was arrested in mid-October. He made full admissions in interview. In due course a guilty plea was entered at the first opportunity.
9. When the appellant was sentenced he was 37 years old and had no previous convictions. He had suffered some psychological trauma as a result of the sexual abuse in his childhood and had had a short period as an in-patient in a psychiatric hospital. He reported that he attempted suicide on a number of occasions, but there was no suggestion of mental impairment or illness when he committed this offence.
10. The offending in this case, we observe, was not blackmail by way of a threat to expose what had happened in 1981. The victim was threatened with serious violence and death. The offending was planned and continued over some weeks. It clearly called for a substantial period of imprisonment. The only question is whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in view, not least, of the appellant's candour when he was interviewed by the police and his early guilty plea.
11. We have been referred to a number of authorities, including Attorney General's Reference No 67 of 2007 [2007] EWCA Crim 2878 in which the court considered a case which is comparable in this respect. There was serious blackmail by a series of substantial monetary demands made by the victim of sexual abuse against his abuser. However, in the end, the authorities are fact specific and of limited assistance. This made a difficult sentencing exercise all the more problematic and we have sympathy with the judge facing this decision.
12. However, we consider that, bearing in mind the background to this offending and the undoubted traumatic effect it had on the appellant, the sentence of four years passed upon the appellant was too long. It would have been appropriate after a trial but not given a guilty plea which earned full credit. We allow the appeal and reduce the sentence to imprisonment of two years and eight months. To that extent the appeal is allowed.