Trundle, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns an 85-year-old Appellant prosecuted for the offence of attempted sexual communication with a child occurring in April 2021. The Appellant initially pleaded not guilty and made several unsuccessful applications to stay proceedings and exclude evidence. Eventually, the Appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Reading on 30 November 2023, receiving a 10% discount for plea.

On 5 April 2024, the Appellant was sentenced to 10 months' immediate imprisonment, a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for 10 years, and a statutory victim surcharge. The appeal challenges the length of the custodial sentence and whether it should have been suspended.

The offending involved communications initiated by the Appellant with an undercover police decoy posing as a 14-year-old boy on a social media site. The Appellant engaged in sexual chat, requested indecent images, and persisted despite being informed of the decoy’s age. The Appellant denied wrongdoing, claiming he knew it was a police officer and was attempting to expose them.

A pre-sentence report detailed the Appellant’s background, health issues, and lack of acceptance of responsibility. The report assessed the Appellant as a high risk of serious harm to children and recommended a community order with rehabilitation activity requirements. The sentencing judge imposed immediate custody, finding no realistic prospect of rehabilitation and that immediate custody was necessary for punishment and public protection.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the 10-month custodial sentence was manifestly excessive.
2. Whether the custodial sentence should have been suspended.

Arguments of the Parties

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

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R v Ali [2023] EWCA Crim, [2023] 2 Cr.App.R (S) 25	Consideration of prison overcrowding and circumstances affecting suspension of sentence.	The court acknowledged R v Ali but held it does not mandate suspension of all under-two-year sentences; it considered the relevant factors in the present case accordingly.
R v Manning [2020] EWCA Crim 592, [2020] 4 WLR 77	Relevance of prison conditions and delays on sentencing and suspension decisions.	The court referred to Manning to support the consideration of individual and generic prison conditions in sentencing decisions.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the sentencing judge's approach to the aggravating and mitigating factors, finding the 10-month sentence not manifestly excessive given the persistence and nature of the offending. The sentencing judge’s categorization of the offence and application of discounts for plea and attempt were upheld in principle.

Regarding suspension, the court applied the Sentencing Council’s guidelines, weighing factors against suspension (risk to public, need for immediate custody, history of compliance) against those in favour (realistic prospect of rehabilitation, personal mitigation, impact on others).

The court found error in the sentencing judge’s acceptance of the pre-sentence report’s risk assessment without considering the three-year period post-offence where the Appellant remained out of trouble and the protective effect of the Sexual Harm Prevention Order. The court concluded there was a realistic prospect of rehabilitation, supported by the probation officer’s confirmation of suitable rehabilitation activity requirements.

Personal mitigation due to advanced age and health issues, as well as the potential harmful impact of immediate custody on others, were also significant. The court determined that these factors outweighed the judge’s concerns and justified suspension of the sentence.

The court reduced the rehabilitation activity requirements from 40 sessions to a maximum of 26 days and suspended the 10-month sentence for 12 months, with conditions including reporting to probation services and compliance with rehabilitation activities.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED THE APPEAL IN PART by suspending the 10-month custodial sentence for a period of 12 months with rehabilitation activity requirements capped at 26 days.

This decision means the Appellant will not serve further immediate custody unless he reoffends within the suspension period, in which case the suspended sentence may be activated less time already served. The ruling emphasizes the importance of considering post-offence conduct, rehabilitation prospects, and personal mitigation in sentencing decisions. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing guidelines and case law.