Watkins & Anor v R.

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns applications for leave to appeal against sentences imposed on two appellants, hereafter referred to as Applicant Watkins and Applicant P, who pleaded guilty to sexual offences against children and young persons. Their co-accused, referred to as Co-Accused B, also pleaded guilty to related offences. The offences involved multiple counts including attempted rape, sexual assault, conspiracy to rape, taking and distributing indecent photographs, and possession of extreme pornographic images. The offences occurred over a period spanning from 2007 to 2012 involving several child victims who are entitled to statutory anonymity. The case was tried at Cardiff Crown Court before Judge Royce J. The applicants challenged the length and structure of the sentences imposed, including issues relating to extended sentences and the calculation of custodial and licence periods.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge correctly ordered the extended licence period in relation to the custodial sentences imposed on Applicant Watkins, particularly as to whether the extended licence period attached only to certain counts or to all relevant counts concurrently or consecutively.
2. Whether the discount for guilty pleas applied to Applicant Watkins was adequate, specifically if a discount greater than 10% was warranted given the circumstances.
3. Whether the total sentence imposed on Applicant Watkins was just and proportionate, particularly in the application of the principle of totality to consecutive and concurrent sentences.
4. Whether the sentence imposed on Applicant P was proportionate to her culpability and the harm caused, including consideration of her personal circumstances and influence by Applicant Watkins.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant Watkins' Arguments

• The judge’s order regarding the extended licence period was ambiguous, and it was submitted that the plain meaning was that only the sentences on certain counts (8 and 9) were extended sentences under section 226A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
• A discount greater than the conventional 10% should have been applied for his guilty pleas, given that he initially did not recall the offences and expert evidence was required to verify the recordings.
• The judge inadequately applied the principle of totality, resulting in a total sentence that was manifestly excessive given that no physical harm was inflicted on the victims.

Applicant P's Arguments

• The sentence imposed was disproportionate to her culpability and the harm caused.
• The judge failed to adequately reflect the malign influence exerted by Applicant Watkins over her immature and damaged personality in sentencing for counts 8 and 9.
• Some of the internet communications were fantasy and she did not intend to expose her child to further sexual assaults by Applicant Watkins.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully analysed the judge’s sentencing order, particularly the application of extended licence periods and the structure of concurrent and consecutive custodial sentences. It resolved ambiguities in favour of Applicant Watkins, concluding that the extended licence period of six years was attached only to certain counts and that the sentences on other counts were determinate and concurrent. The court noted that the judge was aware that extended licence periods could not be imposed concurrently with consecutive custodial terms and thus interpreted the sentence accordingly. The court found that the judge’s explanation of the minimum custodial term was mistaken but that this misunderstanding did not invalidate the sentence.

Regarding the discount for guilty pleas, the court rejected the submission that more than the conventional 10% discount was warranted, finding that the evidence of guilt was incontrovertible and that the pleas saved the trial participants from viewing distressing material.

On the principle of totality, the court affirmed that the judge applied it correctly by imposing consecutive sentences for offences against separate victims and concurrent sentences for related offences. The total sentence was not manifestly excessive given the shocking depravity of the offences.

In relation to Applicant P, the court considered the psychological evidence and the extent of her culpability. It rejected the argument that she was a victim or coerced, finding instead that she was a willing participant who knowingly subjected her child to sexual abuse for Applicant Watkins’ gratification. The court found no error in the sentencing judge’s assessment of seriousness or the sentences imposed on Applicant P.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED THE APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL against sentence brought by both Applicant Watkins and Applicant P.

The direct effect is that the sentences imposed by the Crown Court stand as determined, with the Crown Court record to be amended to reflect the correct interpretation of the extended licence period and sentence structure for Applicant Watkins. No new precedent was established beyond the application and clarification of existing principles regarding extended sentences, plea discounts, and the principle of totality. The decision confirms the court’s approach to sentencing in cases involving multiple offences against separate victims and the treatment of ambiguous sentencing orders.