Jordan Santos-Sindes represented a female teaching assistant who had a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old student over a sustained period. She had been charged with various sexual offences including meeting a child following sexual grooming and abuse of trust – sexual activity with a child. In the Crown Court Jordan successfully mitigated that a suspended sentence should be imposed. The Learned Judge imposed this with no conditions or requirements attached.
The Solicitor General referred the sentence as unduly lenient to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. This was on the basis that the Learned Judge had (i) failed to sufficiently uplift the starting point of the sentence on the lead offence from 4 years’ custody because of the various aggravating features present; (ii) too great a weight was given to mitigating features; and (iii) there was an insufficient consideration to totality, which meant that taking all offences together a notional term of imprisonment that could be suspended was not available to the Learned Judge.
Jordan resisted the application on all grounds advanced by the Solicitor General both in writing and orally before the Court (Edis LJ, Soole J & HHJ Thackray KC).
Having heard submissions, and in delivering judgment, Edis LJ allowed the Solicitor General permission to appeal, but refused the Solicitor General’s application. The Court cited that this was undoubtedly a lenient sentence but the Learned Judge had come to his sentence in a reasoned and rational way, in light of the mitigation that had been put before him. Thereby the Court of Appeal refused to intervene with the sentence in any way, allowing K to keep her freedom.
Jordan was instructed by Laura Baumanis of Olliers Solicitors.
