Stacey, R. v ([2025] EWCA Crim 141): Clarifying the Role of Grooming and Planning in Sexual Offences

1. Introduction

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Stacey, R. v ([2025] EWCA Crim 141) grapples with the implications of grooming or planned behavior in sexual offences involving minors. The appellant, a young adult suffering from intellectual and mental health difficulties, pleaded guilty to multiple counts of rape against a 12-year-old victim, referred to as “C1.” This commentary assesses the background, the key points raised on appeal, and the ultimate reasoning of the appellate court in dismissing the appellant’s contention that the sentencing judge had mischaracterized his conduct as grooming and over-assessed his culpability.

Central to the case is the question of how deceptive behavior and concealment of identity can be treated as grooming, even where the defendant’s conduct is not “typical” of such offending. The issues on appeal focused on whether the trial judge should have placed the appellant’s culpability in Category B rather than Category A (based on the Sentencing Council Guidelines), and whether the appellant’s mental health disorders and low intellectual functioning should have led to a more substantial reduction in sentence.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The appellant pleaded guilty to four offences of rape of a child. He was sentenced to an eight-year-and-six-month special custodial sentence for an offender of particular concern. The sentencing judge placed his crimes on the cusp of Category A, due to the presence of deceptive practices and an element of grooming. The appellant sought to challenge the severity of the sentence by arguing that:

His behavior was not typical of grooming and should not have been deemed Category A.
His difficulties (including autism, ADHD, and low IQ) warranted greater mitigation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence, affirming that the lies regarding the appellant’s name and age, coupled with awareness of the victim’s age, sufficiently demonstrated planning or grooming behavior. The court found no error in the sentencing judge’s categorization and dismissed the appeal.

3. Analysis

a) Precedents Cited

Although the Court of Appeal did not rely extensively on a range of older authorities, the judgment makes reference to, and applies, the Sentencing Council Guidelines in sexual offence cases. These guidelines categorize culpability in part based on indicators of grooming, planning, predatory behavior, or the use of deception. While the judgment does not explicitly name earlier appellate decisions, the court uses well-established principles, such as the importance of considering whether the offender’s actions reflect “significant planning or grooming.”

The court also nods to the mental health sentencing guidelines (paragraphs 9 to 15 of the relevant guideline) which require a clear causal connection between an offender’s impairment or disorder and the offending behavior, to justify a reduction in culpability. This framework—reflecting prior updates in sentencing law—shaped the Court of Appeal’s analysis of the appellant’s mental state and intellectual capacity.

b) Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal devoted substantial attention to the definition of grooming and planned behavior. The appellant contended that, because his intellectual functioning was low and his autism and ADHD disorders explained his actions, the conduct was not intentionally manipulative. However, the court closely examined the factual circumstances, notably:

The appellant deliberately provided a false name—“Jordan Mapleton.”
He knowingly lied about his age, saying he was younger than he actually was.
He recognized that the victim was only 12 years old and nevertheless proceeded to communicate with her, arranging meetings specifically for sexual contact.

The court concluded that these facts supported a firm finding of planned or “grooming” behavior: the appellant had engaged in a protracted course of deceit to facilitate the offences. The mere fact that his autism and ADHD might have contributed to his behavior did not negate or undercut the planning aspect. Furthermore, Dr. Beigi’s psychological report—although highlighting the appellant’s challenges—did not establish a direct causal link between his disorders and the conduct.

Importantly, the judges explained that sentencing would be reduced only if the mental health guideline’s criteria for reduced culpability clearly applied. Here, the judge found that while the appellant’s low intellectual functioning and mental health issues merited some mitigation, they did not fundamentally negate the intentionality or planning inherent in the commission of these offences.

c) Impact

This decision confirms that courts will carefully dissect whether an offender’s alleged “atypical” grooming still falls within planning or deceptive conduct for sentencing purposes. Even where an offender faces intellectual challenges, if the evidence demonstrates a clear awareness of wrongdoing and repeated deception to facilitate offences, a court may place the offender in a higher culpability category.

Practitioners and lower courts alike must pay close attention to the interplay between mental health and criminal culpability. While courts will recognize mental disorders in mitigating sentence length, the threshold for demonstrating a genuine causal link remains high. This decision thus stands as an important clarification, underscoring that grooming—whether typical or atypical—will be treated seriously when assessing sentence severity.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Category A vs. Category B Culpability: Sentencing Guidelines in sexual offence cases divide culpability into levels indicating the offender’s blameworthiness. Category A aligns with factors like ongoing grooming, significant planning, or repeated manipulation. Category B refers to somewhat lower culpability. Even if an offender’s actions do not perfectly mirror frequent patterns of grooming, deliberate strategies to conceal identity and secure opportunities for offending may push the court to treat the case as high culpability (Category A).

Mental Health Guideline: When an offender has mental health issues or an intellectual disability, sentencing courts consult guidance on how such conditions affect culpability. For a significant reduction, the guideline requires evidence that the defendant’s condition directly caused or heavily influenced the offence. In Stacey, R. v, although the appellant’s autism, ADHD, and low IQ were acknowledged, the court found no direct causal link strong enough to mandate a major downward shift in sentencing.

Offender of Particular Concern: A special custodial sentence for an offender of particular concern involves a custodial term plus an additional extended licence period. This reflects the perceived continuing risk posed by the offender, ensuring tighter supervision after release.

5. Conclusion

The Court of Appeal firmly rejected the suggestion that “less typical” grooming cannot meet the Category A threshold for sentencing in sexual offences, underscoring the appellant’s calculated deceit about his identity and awareness of the victim’s age. Despite his mental health challenges, the appellant demonstrated an understanding of, and an attempt to conceal, his illegal behavior. That conduct placed him at the higher end of culpability, justifying the sentencing judge’s approach.

Ultimately, Stacey, R. v contributes an important reference point for future cases involving vulnerable offenders charged with serious sexual offences. It clarifies that while mental disorders and intellectual difficulties can mitigate sentence length to an extent, they cannot wholly diminish culpability where strong evidence of planning and deceit exists. The appellate ruling thereby reinforces the view that protection of minors remains paramount, and deceptive practices—even when atypical—will be treated as an aggravating feature in the sentencing process.