AIW, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal against sentence in a case involving sexual offending by a man aged 56, primarily against his step-granddaughter, a child aged five. The victim benefits from lifetime anonymity under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 and is anonymised as "C". The appellant is anonymised as such due to the familial relationship.

On 28 September 2023, the appellant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Liverpool to an indictment containing 16 counts, including causing and inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, assault by penetration, sexual assault, and offences related to indecent images of children and extreme pornography. On 23 October 2023, His Honour Judge Trevor-Jones sentenced the appellant, imposing extended sentences of 19 years for the two counts of assault by penetration, with concurrent sentences for the other counts ranging from six months to five years and four months. Ancillary orders included a Sexual Harm Prevention Order, a Restraining Order, and indefinite notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

The offending was uncovered following police action on 20 June 2023, based on intelligence about distribution of indecent images. Seizures included computers, hard drives, and mobile phones containing images and videos, some of which were first generation and depicted the victim. Further searches and re-arrest occurred on 16 August 2023, with additional evidence including a suicide note referencing pornography addiction.

The offences spanned several years, with specific counts detailing various acts of sexual abuse and production, possession, and distribution of indecent images involving the victim and others. The appellant made early admissions, expressed remorse, and pleaded guilty on a full facts basis. A pre-sentence report assessed him as posing a significant risk of serious harm to children.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the judge erred in concluding that the appellant was a dangerous offender under the statutory criteria.
2. Whether the imposition of an extended sentence was necessary, or if the risks could be managed by a standard determinate sentence with ancillary orders.
3. Whether the custodial term, particularly for the counts of assault by penetration, was manifestly excessive, including consideration of the degree of penetration.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Challenge to the judge's finding of dangerousness, arguing the pre-sentence report relied on unsupported assumptions.
• Submission that an extended sentence was unnecessary since risks could be managed by a standard sentence combined with ancillary orders, emphasizing the appellant's age, remorse, insight, and rehabilitative potential.
• Argument that the custodial term was excessive, particularly that the judge failed to adequately reduce the sentence for partial rather than full penetration in the assault counts.

Appellant's Counsel's Emphasis

• Greater stress placed on the criticism of the length of the custodial term.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by addressing the custodial term, finding no manifest excessiveness in the sentencing for the assault by penetration offences despite the partial nature of penetration. The judge's approach to totality and uplift for multiple offences was considered just and proportionate given the sustained and severe sexual abuse over several years.

Regarding the dangerousness finding, the court rejected the appellant's challenge, noting the pre-sentence report's careful and evidence-based assessment of risk factors, including the appellant's entrenched behaviour, manipulative conduct, and high sexual preoccupation. The appellant's own admissions supported this assessment.

The court considered age as a factor but found the appellant was only 55 at sentencing, which did not materially reduce risk. It held that the judge's conclusion that the appellant met the statutory dangerousness criterion was well-founded.

On whether an extended sentence was necessary, the court recognized that such a sentence does not automatically follow from a dangerousness finding but concluded that the risks identified could not be adequately managed by a standard determinate sentence and ancillary orders alone. The pre-sentence report provided no evidence that rehabilitative efforts would materially reduce risk. The extended licence period was necessary to manage ongoing risks, particularly the appellant's potential to target vulnerable infants upon release.

Holding and Implications

The appeal against sentence is DISMISSED.

The court upheld the extended sentences imposed by the sentencing judge, confirming the appellant's dangerousness and the necessity of the custodial and extended licence terms. The decision directly affects the appellant by maintaining a lengthy custodial term with extended supervision but does not establish new legal precedent beyond reaffirming existing principles on risk assessment and sentencing in sexual offence cases.