Regina v Thompson

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 sentences imposed on the Defendant for review on the basis that they are unduly lenient.

The Defendant pleaded guilty before magistrates on two separate occasions to offences including arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence and attempting to meet a child following sexual grooming, as well as making indecent photographs of children.

The Defendant was sentenced in the Crown Court at Carlisle by Miss Recorder Bex QC to a total sentence of two years' imprisonment suspended for two years, with additional unpaid work and rehabilitation requirements, and was made subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for ten years.

Facts revealed that the Defendant, a man of mature years with no previous convictions, engaged in online grooming of a police decoy posing as a 13-year-old child, arranged to meet her, and was arrested at the meeting place. Evidence included indecent images found on his electronic devices. The Defendant admitted his intentions and took steps towards committing the offences.

A Pre-Sentence Report indicated the Defendant was open and frank, accepted responsibility, and was assessed as low risk for reoffending with mitigating personal circumstances, including mental health concerns and proactive engagement with support services.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentences imposed on the Defendant were unduly lenient and should be increased on review.
2. How the court should assess the offender’s intent and the extent to which the fact that the child victim was fictitious affects sentencing.
3. The appropriate starting points and adjustments for sentencing under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and related legislation.
4. The relevance and extent of reductions for guilty pleas and mitigating factors including good character and pandemic-related considerations.
5. Whether the sentences for multiple offences should be aggregated to reflect totality and whether suspension of sentences was appropriate.

Arguments of the Parties

Attorney General's Arguments

• The primary submission focused on the offence of arranging or facilitating a child sex offence (count 1), asserting the sentence should reflect the harm the Defendant intended to cause, which was penetrative sex (Category 1 harm) with high culpability due to age disparity and grooming.
• The starting point for count 1 should be five years' imprisonment with a range of four to ten years.
• The judge should have limited the downward adjustment for the fact that the offence was not completed because the victim was fictitious, as intent is paramount and the offender had taken all practical steps to commit the offence.
• There should have been an upward adjustment to the total sentence to reflect the unrelated additional offences (counts 3 and 4), which would have precluded suspension.
• The submissions made orally were broader than those in the written Reference, which was noted as a procedural concern.

Defendant's Arguments

• The sentencing judge was entitled to consider all facts including the impossibility of committing the offence because the child was fictitious.
• The judge was entitled to find that she was not sure the Defendant would have carried out the offence if not arrested, and this was relevant to the extent of any downward reduction beyond the fact that the victim was not real.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the sentencing of the Defendant by focusing on the intention behind the offences and the applicability of statutory provisions, particularly section 63 of the Sentencing Act 2020, which requires courts to assess culpability and harm caused or intended.

The court acknowledged that the Defendant had taken concrete steps to commit the offence, including arranging a meeting and booking a hotel room, establishing clear intent.

However, the judge’s finding that she was not sure the offence would have been completed absent police intervention was held to be relevant only to a limited extent when considering downward adjustment of sentence.

The court found the original downward adjustment excessive, determining that a starting point of five years’ custody was appropriate, reduced to four years to reflect mitigating factors such as the use of a decoy, the Defendant’s good character, Covid-related considerations, and the offence being an attempt.

Applying a one-third reduction for the guilty plea and further adjustments for time served led the court to substitute a sentence of two years and six months’ immediate imprisonment for the suspended sentence originally imposed.

The court also quashed and substituted custodial sentences for the remaining offences to run concurrently, rejecting the Attorney General’s submission for an upward adjustment based on the unrelated offences because the overall sentence was deemed appropriate considering totality and personal circumstances.

The court allowed credit for time spent under curfew in accordance with statutory provisions and provided practical directions regarding surrender.

Holding and Implications

The court held that the sentences originally imposed were unduly lenient in respect of the primary offence and substituted them with immediate custodial terms.

The sentence for count (1) was increased from two years’ imprisonment suspended for two years to two years and six months’ immediate imprisonment. Sentences for counts (2), (3), and (4) were similarly quashed and replaced with immediate custodial sentences to run concurrently.

The court explicitly rejected increasing the sentence further to reflect unrelated offences, concluding the substituted sentences appropriately reflected the totality of the offending and the Defendant’s personal circumstances.

The decision directly affects the Defendant by imposing immediate custody rather than suspended sentences but does not establish new legal precedent beyond the application of existing sentencing principles and statutory guidelines.