A PAEDOPHILE from Winsford who claimed that his jail sentence for sexually abusing two young girls was ‘manifestly excessive’ has had his appeal turned down. 


David Sands, from Swanlow Lane, Winsford, was jailed for 14 years at Liverpool Crown Court on January 18, after being found guilty of 20 counts of historic sexual assault on two young girls.


He was acquitted of 10 other charges. 


The court heard in January that Sands, who previously lived St Helens, Merseyside, where the offences took place, began to sexually abuse one of his victims when she was just four-years-old and the other when she was six and in each case the offences continued over a four or five-year period.


Sands lodged an application to appeal against his sentence, stating that he thought it was too long. 


Lord Justice Colman Treacy said: “The grounds of appeal complain that the judge failed to make sufficient allowance for totality and that the custodial sentence of 14 years was manifestly excessive. Additionally, it was argued that the judge failed to make any allowance for the fact that the jury found the applicant not guilty on a number of counts.


“On this last point, we are unimpressed. The judge passed sentence on the basis of the jury’s verdicts which showed that there had been repeated and prolific offending against very young victims over a period of four to five years. 


The application was heard on Thursday, May 5, in the Court of Appeal before Lord Justice Treacy, Mr Justice Ian Dove, and the Recorder of London Jonathan Hilliard QC.

 
The application was then refused on Tuesday, May 17, with Lord Justice Treacy stating that the judge ‘clearly made significant reductions for totality’ and dismissed claims that the sentence was excessive. 


Lord Justice Treacy said: “Since these were offences committed against different victims in circumstances separate from one another, the judge was entitled to make the two sets of sentences run consecutively. It is apparent that considerations of totality permeated the whole of the sentencing process. 


“The judge’s approach the sentencing of these cases was careful and measured and reflected the modern approach to historical or non-recent offences. We do not consider that the total custodial sentence is manifestly excessive and this aspect of the application must fail.”