No: 200801773/A9 
Neutral Citation Number: [2008] EWCA Crim 1264
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL

Friday, 23rd May 2008

B e f o r e:

MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE

HIS HONOUR JUDGE GORDON 
(Sitting as a Judge of the CACD)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R E G I N A 

v 

DESMOND GOSFORD‑HALL 
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of  
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company 
190 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr L Muir Wilson appeared on behalf of the Appellant
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
1.	MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE:  The appellant in this case, Desmond Ian Gosford‑Hall, is 68 years of age.  He appeals, with leave of the single judge, granted as recently as Tuesday of this week, against sentences totalling 9 months' imprisonment imposed on him in the Crown Court at Southwark on 7th March 2008 in respect of three matters.  Each was an offence of sexual assault.  
2.	The learned judge was dealing with two such offences, for which he sentenced the appellant to 3 months' imprisonment for each and ordered that those sentences be consecutive.  But, at the time of the commission of the offences, the appellant was already the subject of a suspended sentence order made pursuant to section 189 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 in the city of Westminster Magistrates' Court on 13th October 2006 for an offence of sexual assault committed on 11th July 2006.  On that occasion the order was a sentence of 3 months' imprisonment, suspended for 12 months together with a supervision requirement.
3.	 This appeal was not promptly launched but has now been brought before the court with commendable speed, largely it appears due to the speed and persistence of Miss Muir Wilson, to whom the appellant has good cause to be grateful.  There was some uncertainty about the history of the proceedings, because breach proceedings were commenced by the probation service for noncompliance with the supervision requirement, the alleged breach being the appellant's inappropriate behaviour at certain sessions where he was required to attend.  He attended, it appears, when in drink and in inappropriate dress, having had warnings about how he should be dressed when he presented himself.
4.	That alleged breach was contested and it appears that that was then adjourned and has not been proceeded with because the commission of the new offences themselves admittedly triggered the provisions of paragraph 8 of Schedule 12 to the Act, giving the court power to proceed in respect of the suspended sentence order under those provisions.
5.	The facts of the two new offences, as opened to the learned judge, are set out conveniently in Miss Muir Wilson's grounds of appeal.  On 30th July 2007 the appellant went into a jeweller's shop and asked inappropriately for whiskey and coke.  The jeweller informed him that the shop did not sell such things.  He left the shop.  Outside was a 14‑year‑old girl with her brother and her mother, and encountering them, the appellant pinched the girl's bottom, winked at her and told her not to worry.  The girl's brother confronted the appellant and told him to apologise for what he had just done, which he did.  
6.	The police were called.  The appellant was arrested.  The police reported that he was very intoxicated.  He said that he had no memory of the incident but he accepted what was said against him.  
7.	He pleaded guilty to that offence at the lower court. The next such offence was committed on 9th August 2007.  The appellant was in the city of Westminster area, near to the Home Office building in Marshall Street.  He saw a smartly dressed young woman and young man, put his arm around the woman and asked if they were barristers.  They said that they were not.  He continued to attempt to engage them in conversation.  He touched the young woman's bottom, over her clothing.  He then walked off.
8.	The police were called and arrested the appellant.  The judge was given some details of his demeanour on his arrest, when he said to the police, clearly still very much affected by drink: "she was very nice, a barrister, very firm.  I just wanted to touch her firm bottom."  He made similar remarks along those lines, remarks which undoubtedly he would only have made when in drink.
9.	It appears to have been on that day that he had attended a group treatment session and had been asked to leave because he was inappropriately dressed.
10.	The earlier offence for which the suspended sentence order had been made occurred in July 2006 at an Underground station.  It was of a somewhat similar nature but, in our judgment, rather worse on its facts.  On the escalator the appellant remarked to a lady in front of him that he would like to open her legs and lick her.  He made a lewd remark about whether she had recently been enjoying any sexual activity.  He put his arms around her shoulder and kissed her on the cheek.   
11.	So those were in total the matters for which he fell to be sentenced.  His previous criminal record is noteworthy because between 1997 and 2001, he had a number of convictions for indecently assaulting females, for which he had received various community sentences and suspended sentences and one immediate prison sentence of 3 months in 1999.  Those offences were interspersed with other offences of being drunk and disorderly.  The picture is of a man who could not resist committing such offences when in drink.  There was then a gap in his offending, until the events of 2006 and 2007, to which we have referred.  
12.	Thus far this is a disturbing case but one without any particular exceptional features.  It is when we look at the character and the background material submitted to the court about the appellant that unusual features of this case appear.  These features can be summarised quite shortly.  But it is important to emphasise that they are confirmed by a good deal of documentary material before us, which includes a number of pre‑sentence reports and a psychiatric report and the various letters, which have been written to the appellant over the years, all but one of which are not in connection with these proceedings, written by persons of distinction and renown, with whom he is or had been acquainted, including two Prime Ministers and a leading member of the Royal family.  
13.	The appellant is a man of remarkable talents in the world of music.  He was the first black organ scholar at Oxford University.  He has held numerous positions as organist and choir master at churches in the United Kingdom and overseas.  He has been a leading figure in musical education in the London area, particularly in multi ethnic communities.  He has widened his activities from music into community relations generally.  He founded the Bloomsbury Society, formed to promote racially harmony and Human Rights through multi‑cultural community events.  It is not necessary to add to this brief summary for the purposes of the judgment.  But a good deal more detail along these lines is placed before us and we have considered it all.
14.	Throughout all this, its seems clear that the appellant has had intermittently a long history of alcohol dependency, no doubt concealed from many of those with whom he has been in contact in the musical circles in which he has walked and worked.  It is bluntly apparent that when in drink he cannot resist the sort of lewd and offensive behaviour towards female strangers which we have described.  He appears to lead, or to have led at times, two different lives.
15.	There is a further important factor relevant to the sentencing exercise in this case.  It is that his wife, who is present supporting in court today, to whom he has been married since 1982, has herself had a number of serious health problems.  We do not recite them in this advice.  We have no wish to embarrass the lady, but we make clear that we have read carefully all the material before us on it.  In particular, she was diagnosed with a serious condition some 10 or 12 years ago, and has undergone numerous courses of treatment which have left her with some disability in respect of which the appellant has for some years acted as her principal carer.  He himself, furthermore, suffers from a number of health problems, including diabetes, hypertension and eyesight problems.  
16.	The psychiatric report included in the papers reveals a man who to the psychiatrist was friendly, indeed rather loud and garrulous, with a grandiose way of speaking.  The psychiatrist thought that he was suffering from a form of manic depressive illness, although not such as to be directly relevant to the form of offending which was essentially drink related.
17.	The learned judge passing sentence referred to what he described as an appalling past record for serious sexual offences and summarised what we have already set out in this judgment.  He referred to the failure of the appellant to respond to non‑custodial sentences.  That failure was apparent both in his early series of offending, up to 2001, and in the recent past.  He was considered by the author of the pre‑sentence report to be at a high risk of re‑offending.  Clearly when in drink that is the case.  The learned judge therefore went on to pass the sentences to which we have referred.  It is submitted that the sentence in total was manifestly excessive.  
18.	Because of the various confusions that have occurred in the course of these proceedings, part of which may have been due it appears to the fact that the appellant does not always go under his full name but under a more shortened version of it, there were adjournments and delays and it was not until March that the case was disposed of, even though the appellant admitted his offences from the start.
19.	Much more important, in our judgment, is the fact that since his last arrest in August 2007, he remains alcohol free and has attended appropriate courses and was showing a very much greater determination to tackle the roots of his problem and take responsibility for his offending behaviour.  By the time of sentence, in the view of the author of the pre‑sentence report, he had made excellent progress in developing greater motivation to address the underlying causes of his offences.
20.	In this most unusual case, we are struck by these elements of personal mitigation, including in particular Mrs Hall's state of health and, to a lesser extent, his own.  It does not appear from the learned judge's sentencing remarks what weight he gave to those factors.  But for them, in our judgment, the total sentence of 9 months would have been unexceptionable.  With them, however, we consider that it was too long and that a total of 6 months properly meets  the justice of the case.  
21.	We have considered how to give effect to that conclusion.  We have decided to arrive at that result by making a single adjustment to the sentence imposed in the lower court, making the two sentences for the new offences concurrent with one another instead of consecutive.  Although we have heard submissions relating to the efforts made under the suspended sentence order, those related to the supervision element of it, he was throughout at risk of being ordered to serve 3 months for the sentence was brought into effect and that will remain in effect consecutive to the 3 months for the new offences.  
22.	It is to be hoped that the progress shown in the last few months since his arrest last August will now be maintained.  It seems to us that the appellant now realises what he owes both to his wife and himself and indeed to society as a whole and to all his admirers, of whom there are many, not to relapse again into the sort of offending and cumulatively serious behaviour into which drinking has led him hitherto.  The appeal is allowed by making the two sentences for the new offences concurrent instead of consecutive.  The activated suspended sentence of 3 months remains consecutive.  The total is therefore 6 months instead 9 months. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
23.	MISS MUIR WILSON:  One thing that arises from that is that a notification requirement was made.  Of course the sentence having been reduced to 6 months, they need variation of notification.  
24.	MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE:  It applies to the total whatever it is, does it? 
25.	MISS MUIR WILSON:  It does. So it was originally a notification requirement for 10 years, given it was a sentence of more than 6 months.  There will, in those circumstances, need to be a variation of the notification.
26.	MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE:  That follows automatically without specific order of the court.  
27.	MISS MUIR WILSON:  In relation the other matter for which there was no separate penalty. 
28.	MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE:  That remains unchanged.  
29.	Thank you for all the work you have done in this case.  I am sure the appellant will be grateful, as will Mrs Hall.