2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Max Clifford was convicted in 2014 for indecent assault against four victims and sentenced to 8 years in prison. Clifford appealed, claiming the sentence was excessive and improperly influenced by bad character evidence and his conduct around the trial. The court acknowledged errors in the judge's consideration but held the sentence as proportionate and justified.
Judgment
Lord Justice Treacy :
Introduction
This offender, commonly known as Max Clifford, was convicted after a trial at Southwark Crown Court. He applies for leave to appeal against sentence, the matter having been referred by the Registrar to the full court. We grant leave.
On 2 nd May 2014 he was sentenced to a total of 8 years on eight counts of indecent assault contrary to s14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956.
Those counts related to four victims. The anonymity provisions in relation to victims of sexual crime are in place, and we shall refer to the victims as B, C, D and E. The offences took place between 1977 and 1984.
Counts 3-6 relate to B; these offences took place in 1977 and 1978. The appellant was sentenced to a total of 4 ½ years with 12 months for count 3, 18 months consecutive for count 4, 24 months consecutive for count 5, and 24 months concurrent for count 6.
Count 8 concerns victim C. A term of six months consecutive was imposed.
Counts 9 and 10 concern the victim D. In all, 21 months consecutive was imposed, represented by 6 months on count 9, to run concurrently with 21 months on count 10.
Count 11 concerns victim E. 15 months consecutive was imposed for this offence.
In addition the appellant was ordered to pay £55,000 towards the costs of the prosecution. On counts 1, 2 and 7, relating to other alleged victims, the jury either disagreed or acquitted.
Counts 3-6
Counts 3-6 relate to victim B. She met the appellant whilst on holiday with her family in August 1977. The appellant told her and her family that she was pretty and that he could get her promotional work. Contact was maintained after their return to the UK. The appellant began grooming B telling her that she could be like Jodie Foster.
On one occasion he pretended to be somebody else on the phone and made her repeat sexual words. He asked her to come to his office where he made her take off her bra and made derogatory comments about her breasts as she did so. He visited B’s home and gained the trust of her parents so that they agreed to let him take her out in his car. They believed that the appellant would take her to meet people who could help with her career, and he provided B with false stories about whom she had met to tell her parents. In all B went out in the car with him on about ten occasions.
The appellant would park in different places and abuse her in the car. He showed her his erect penis and told her to masturbate him and indeed showed her how to