Regina v MICHAEL ANTHONY CHARNLEY

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application by Her Majesty's Attorney General under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 seeking leave to refer a sentence considered unduly lenient to the Court of Appeal. The offender, a 55-year-old male, pleaded guilty in the Crown Court to multiple offences involving indecent photographs of children and causing or inciting children under 13 to engage in sexual activity, including penetrative acts. The offender was sentenced to a total of five years' imprisonment, with all sentences ordered to run concurrently. The Attorney General challenged the adequacy of this sentence, prompting the current reference.

Legal Issues Presented

1. What is the appropriate level of sentencing where an offender procures the sexual abuse of young, vulnerable children abroad by paying adults to abuse children for his sexual gratification?
2. Whether the original sentencing judge erred in the application of the Sentencing Guidelines Council's Definitive Guideline, particularly regarding starting points and totality.
3. Whether concurrent sentencing was appropriate given the multiplicity and severity of offences committed against different victims.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the sentencing in light of the Definitive Guideline issued by the Sentencing Guidelines Council. It found that the sentencing judge erred by adopting a starting point of seven years for the most serious offence (count 23), where the appropriate starting point was thirteen years due to aggravating factors such as multiple offenders acting together and the likely abduction or detention of the child victim. The court emphasised the aggravating features including the planned nature of the offences, the penetrative acts, multiple victims, and the exploitation of particularly vulnerable children. It rejected any mitigation based on the offences occurring abroad, noting that modern communications facilitating such abuse constitute an aggravating factor rather than mitigation.

The court further criticised the concurrent running of all sentences, stating that given the separate nature of each offence against different victims, consecutive sentences were warranted to reflect the gravity and multiplicity of the crimes. The court acknowledged the offender’s previous good character and guilty plea but concluded that the original total sentence of five years was wholly inadequate to meet the seriousness of the offences.

Applying the principles of totality, the court proposed revised sentencing: four years for counts 1 to 19; four years consecutively for counts 20 to 22 (raised from three years); and eight years for count 23 (reduced from the thirteen-year starting point due to plea), with the eight-year sentence to run concurrently with counts 20 to 22 but consecutively to counts 1 to 19, resulting in a total effective sentence of twelve years’ imprisonment.

Holding and Implications

The court granted leave to refer the sentence and substituted a total sentence of twelve years' imprisonment.

The decision directly affects the offender by significantly increasing the custodial sentence to better reflect the gravity and multiplicity of the offences. The ruling underscores that offences involving the procurement of child sexual abuse abroad via modern technology are subject to severe sentencing, with no mitigation arising from the geographic location of the victims. The court’s approach reinforces the principle that multiple offences against different victims warrant consecutive sentences to ensure adequate punishment and deterrence. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application and clarification of existing sentencing guidelines to these facts.