Adjusting Sentences in Safeguarding Offences: Insights from Roach v [2024] EWCA Crim 211

Introduction

The case of Roach v [2024] EWCA Crim 211 marks a significant development in the realm of safeguarding offences under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 ("the 2006 Act") and the Sexual Offences Act 2003 ("the 2003 Act"). The appellant, Roach, appealed his sentence of imprisonment for attempting to engage a minor in sexual activity and for engaging in barred activities contrary to the 2006 Act.

This commentary delves into the court's reasoning, the application of precedent, and the broader implications of the judgment on future legal proceedings involving safeguarding offences.

Summary of the Judgment

The appellant, initially sentenced to 8 years for attempting to cause a minor to engage in sexual activity and 18 months for engaging in barred activities, appealed against the length of his sentences. The Court of Appeal reviewed the sentence, particularly focusing on whether it was "manifestly excessive." The court reduced the custodial sentence from 4 years to 3 years for the sexual offence and adjusted the safeguarding offence sentence from 18 months to 10 months, concluding that the original sentencing did not appropriately account for the absence of an actual victim and the appellant's mental health conditions.

The final sentence upheld was an extended sentence of 7 years, comprising a 3-year custodial period and a 4-year extended licence period.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment heavily references the case of Reed & Anor v The Queen [2021] EWCA Crim 572, which provides guidance on sentencing when there is no actual child victim. The Reed case established that in such scenarios, the harm should be assessed based on the intended harm, allowing for a small downward adjustment within the sentencing category range.

This precedent was pivotal in determining that the absence of a real victim in Roach's case warranted a reduction in the sentence, as the appellant was interacting with an adult posing as a minor.

Legal Reasoning

The court applied the totality principle, which ensures that when multiple offences are sentenced together, the cumulative sentence is just and proportionate. The original sentence's excessiveness was evaluated based on four main points:

• Failure to adjust the sentence for an attempt or lack of an actual victim.
• Not accounting for the appellant's unawareness of being under investigation for safeguarding offences.
• Excessiveness of the 20-month sentence for the safeguarding offences before discount.
• Neglecting the appellant's mental health vulnerabilities, including borderline personality disorder and ADHD.

Applying Reed's guidance, the court adjusted the notional sentence before the plea and applied appropriate discounts. For the safeguarding offence, the categorisation aligned with breach of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO), suggesting a lower sentence within the categorisation range due to the nature of the breach.

The court also considered mitigating factors such as the appellant's mental health conditions, which warranted a reduction in the overall sentencing uplift.

Impact

This judgment sets a critical precedent for future cases involving safeguarding offences, particularly where the perpetrator was unknowingly interacting with adults masquerading as minors. It underscores the necessity of nuanced sentencing that considers the existence of an actual victim, the offender's awareness, and mental health conditions.

Legal practitioners must now meticulously assess these factors when arguing for sentence reductions, and courts are guided to apply the Reed framework to ensure proportionate sentencing.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Totality Principle

The totality principle ensures that when multiple offences are considered together in sentencing, the combined sentence is fair and proportionate to the severity of the combined crimes, avoiding excessively harsh penalties.

Safeguarding Offences

These are offences that involve harming or attempting to harm vulnerable individuals, such as children or vulnerable adults, and are regulated under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.

Sexual Harm Prevention Order (SHPO)

An SHPO is a court order designed to protect the public from individuals deemed to pose a risk of sexual harm. Breaching an SHPO is a serious offence that carries specific legal consequences.

Category Range in Sentencing

Sentencing guidelines categorize offences based on their severity, with each category having a starting point and a range of possible sentences. Adjustments are made within these ranges based on factors like intent, harm, and offender characteristics.

Conclusion