Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion concerns an application by His Majesty's Solicitor General for leave to refer a sentence considered unduly lenient. The Defendant, a 26-year-old male, was sentenced on 8 April 2024 at Bradford Crown Court for multiple sexual offences involving two child victims under the age of 13 and other unidentified victims depicted in indecent images. The offending spanned when the Defendant was aged between 23 and 25 years.
The Defendant groomed two young victims via social media, deceiving them about his age, and engaged in persistent contact. For the first victim, the conduct escalated to physical meetings involving multiple instances of oral rape and one instance of vaginal intercourse before she turned 13, as well as the production of indecent images. The second victim was subjected to persistent online sexualised contact but never met the Defendant in person; however, he caused her to watch a sexual act and possessed indecent images of her. Additional indecent images of unidentified children were found on the Defendant's device.
The Defendant was arrested on 17 July 2023 and charged shortly thereafter. He initially pleaded not guilty but later pleaded guilty to multiple counts, including rape of a child under 13, sexual assault, causing a child to watch a sexual act, sexual activity with a child, and making indecent photographs. The pleas included an assertion that no force was used and that the Defendant believed the first victim was consenting. A 25% discount was applied for the guilty plea.
The sentencing judge found the Defendant dangerous and structured the sentences with concurrent terms, imposing a total custodial sentence of 10 years and six months imprisonment with an extended licence period of two and a half years. The Defendant was subject to sexual harm prevention orders and registration on the sex offender register.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the original sentence imposed on the Defendant was unduly lenient.
- The appropriate total sentence length reflecting the gravity and multiplicity of offences against multiple victims.
- The application of sentencing guidelines and principles of totality in determining concurrent versus consecutive sentences.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant's Arguments (His Majesty's Solicitor General)
- The notional sentence after trial of 14 years was too low given the scale and nature of offending.
- The offending involved two separate victims, multiple rapes, sexual activity with a child, and making indecent photographs, each attracting substantial starting points under the guidelines.
- The totality principle should not result in a sentence below what properly reflects the cumulative criminality and harm.
- After considering the offences against both victims, a notional sentence of at least 18 years before discount was appropriate.
Defendant's Arguments
- The 10 years and six months sentence was very long and within the acceptable range for the offences.
- Sentencing is not a mechanical exercise; the judge had appropriate regard to totality and the nature of the case.
- Although the sentence might be considered lenient, it was not unduly so.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analysed the sentencing guidelines applicable to each offence category, including rape of a child under 13 (Category 3A, starting point 10 years), sexual assault of a child (2A, starting point 4 years), making indecent photographs (Category A, starting point 1 year), causing a child to watch a sexual act (2A, starting point 2 years), and sexual activity with a child (1A, starting point 5 years). The court emphasised the principle of totality, noting that sentences cannot simply be added together but must reflect the overall criminality proportionately.
The court acknowledged mitigating factors including the Defendant's lack of previous convictions and good character, though these were given limited weight due to the seriousness of the offences. Positive prison reports and work engagement were noted, but no progress in addressing offending behaviour was evident.
Considering the multiplicity of offences against the first victim alone—multiple oral rapes, sexual assault, and indecent images—the court concluded that the notional sentence after trial should have been at least 16 years. The separate offences against the second victim justified an additional notional consecutive sentence of two years, resulting in a total of 18 years before discount. Applying the 25% plea discount yielded a sentence of 13 years and six months.
The court therefore found the original sentence of 10 years and six months unduly lenient and granted leave to refer the sentence for increase accordingly, while maintaining the concurrent structure and extended licence period.
Holding and Implications
The court GRANTED LEAVE to refer the sentence on the basis that it was unduly lenient and ALLOWED THE REFERENCE to the extent of increasing the sentences on the lead counts from 10 years and six months to 13 years and six months, to run concurrently. All other sentences remain concurrent and unchanged, as does the extended licence period of two and a half years.
The decision directly affects the Defendant by increasing the custodial sentence to better reflect the totality of the offending and the harm caused. No new legal precedent was established by this ruling.