Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, aged 54 at the time, pleaded guilty on 10th August 2023 in the Crown Court at Woolwich to multiple offences including taking and making indecent photographs of children and voyeurism. The offences involved three young women anonymised as C1, C2, and C3. The offending came to light following a police raid on the appellant's home in February 2022, which resulted in the seizure of seven electronic devices containing a large volume of indecent images and videos of children. The appellant admitted to downloading images from a pornographic website but denied sexual interest in children and made no comment on the specific photographs and videos of C1, C2, and C3, who were connected to him through family relationships.
The appellant was sentenced on 6th October 2023 to a total of five years' imprisonment, alongside a ten-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order and a Restraining Order. He appealed against the sentence by leave of a single judge.
The sentencing judge took into account the nature and gravity of the offences, the impact on the victims as expressed in Victim Personal Statements, the appellant's previous good character, his partial remorse, and the guilty pleas which merited a 25% reduction in sentence. The sentences for individual counts were structured with some to run consecutively and others concurrently, leading to the total five-year sentence.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the notional sentences before reduction for guilty pleas were excessively high, particularly concerning the category A images and voyeurism counts.
- Whether the sentencing judge erred in ordering consecutive sentences on counts involving similar offences committed within the same period, specifically counts 1, 6, and 7.
- Whether the principle of totality was properly applied in the overall sentencing.
- Clarification on the minimum custodial period to be served before release on licence under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The notional sentences before reduction for guilty pleas, especially the 28 months for count 2, were disproportionately high compared to sentencing guidelines.
- The sentencing judge's starting points for counts 6 and 7 were excessively high relative to the guideline starting point of six months' custody for category 1 offences.
- There was potential double counting of aggravating factors in sentencing.
- The consecutive sentences on counts 1, 6, and 7 were inappropriate given the similarity and timing of the offences, and the total sentence exceeded the maximum for individual offences.
Court's Submissions (via Counsel)
- The appellant's counsel acknowledged that counts 6 and 7 fell within category 1 but argued the starting points used by the sentencing judge were too high.
- Argued that the principle of totality should have led to concurrent sentences for counts 6 and 7.
- Highlighted that the maximum sentence for voyeurism is two years, yet the combined sentence for counts 6 and 7 exceeded this.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by analysing the sentence on count 1, noting that although it was charged under the same statutory provision as counts 2, 3, and 4, the nature of the offending (taking the photograph personally and presence at the time) made it akin to voyeurism. The court agreed with the sentencing judge's approach and sentence length for this count, considering the aggravating factors.
Regarding counts 6 and 7, the court accepted that these were category 1 offences with a guideline starting point of six months' custody. However, significant aggravating factors justified sentences towards the top of the category range or above it for the multi-incident count. The court found no error in imposing consecutive sentences for counts 1, 6, and 7, noting the different victims and time separation between count 1 and the others.
The court observed that the sentencing judge treated counts 2, 3, and 4 as a group, with count 2 as the lead offence reflecting overall criminality, including the gravity and sheer volume of images. However, the court found the notional sentence of 28 months for count 2 to be extremely severe and bordering on disproportionate.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the principle of totality was insufficiently applied by the sentencing judge. While individual sentences were rounded down slightly, the overall total sentence of five years was manifestly excessive. The court decided to reduce the sentence on count 2 from 21 months to 11 months, thereby reducing the total sentence to 50 months (four years and two months).
Additionally, the court addressed an error regarding the minimum custodial period before release. The sentencing judge incorrectly stated that two-thirds of the sentence had to be served before release, whereas, under the relevant legislation, the minimum period is half the total sentence for consecutive sentences under four years each. This correction reduced the minimum custodial period from 40 months to 30 months, and following the sentence reduction, the maximum period before release on licence is now 25 months.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is ALLOWED IN PART.
The court quashed the 21-month sentence on count 2 and substituted it with an 11-month sentence, reducing the total custodial sentence from five years to four years and two months. All other sentencing orders, including the Sexual Harm Prevention Order and Restraining Order, remain unchanged. The court also corrected the appellant's minimum custodial period before release on licence from two-thirds to one-half of the total sentence, consistent with statutory provisions.
This decision directly affects the appellant's sentence length and release conditions but does not establish new legal precedent. It underscores the importance of careful application of the principle of totality in sentencing multiple offences and correct interpretation of statutory release provisions.