Harrison, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application by His Majesty's Solicitor General seeking leave to refer sentences imposed on the Respondent Offender under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 on the grounds that they were unduly lenient.

The Respondent Offender, aged 61 at the time of the offences, pleaded guilty to two sexual offences committed against two 8-year-old girls and was subsequently sentenced to a total of 4 years' imprisonment. The offences involved causing or inciting the girls to engage in sexual activity contrary to section 8(1) and (3) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Additionally, the Respondent pleaded guilty to two counts of child abduction but no separate penalties were imposed for those counts.

The offences occurred on 10 September 2022 when the Respondent approached two young girls in a supermarket, offered to buy them sweets without parental permission, and later showed them a photograph of his penis on his phone while at his car. The girls refused to enter the car despite offers of money and ran away. The police were notified, and the Respondent was arrested two days later, admitting to some aspects of the conduct but minimizing intent.

Prior to sentencing, the Respondent had a history of sexual offences including sexual assault, exposure, and outraging public decency. He had previously been sentenced to Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) and was released on licence but had his licence revoked shortly before committing the current offences.

The sentencing court imposed 4 years' imprisonment concurrent for the sexual offences and no separate penalty for the child abduction counts. Ancillary orders including a victim surcharge, sexual harm prevention order, and restraining order were also imposed.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentences imposed on the Respondent Offender for the sexual offences were unduly lenient.
2. Whether the sentencing court erred in its starting point and reduction for guilty pleas.
3. Whether the Respondent Offender should have been found to be a dangerous offender warranting an extended sentence.
4. The appropriate length of custodial and extended licence periods to protect the public.

Arguments of the Parties

Submissions on behalf of the Solicitor General

• No issue was taken with the absence of separate penalties for the child abduction counts as they were treated as aggravating features.
• Very limited credit should be given for guilty pleas entered after cross-examination of the witnesses, referencing the Criminal Practice Directions 2023 and the Definitive Guideline on Reduction for Guilty Pleas.
• The sentencing judge erred by not increasing the starting point of 6 years' imprisonment for category 2B offences to reflect the aggravating factors including two victims.
• Personal mitigation was limited, with remorse tempered by a lack of full acceptance of responsibility.
• The offences occurred shortly after revocation of the Respondent's licence conditions, highlighting risk concerns.
• The Respondent should have been found a dangerous offender given the pre-sentence report and mobile phone evidence, and an extended licence period should have been imposed to protect the public.

Submissions on behalf of the Respondent

• The sentence was not unduly lenient and was appropriately imposed by an experienced Recorder.
• The Respondent does not pose a danger to the public.
• The offences were in category 3 harm or at the lowest level of category 2, justifying the sentence imposed.
• The Respondent expressed shame and remorse, apologizing to the victims, Parole Board, Probation Service, and courts.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Attorney-General's Reference (Azad) [2021] EWCA Crim 1846; [2022] 2 Cr App R (S) 10	Principles governing applications under section 36 Criminal Justice Act 1988 regarding unduly lenient sentences.	The court summarized that sentences are only unduly lenient if outside the range reasonably open to the sentencing judge, and leave to refer should be granted only in exceptional cases.
Plaku & others [2021] EWCA Crim 658; [2022] 1 Cr App R (S) 7	Consideration of credit for guilty pleas entered at different stages of proceedings.	The court adopted a holistic approach to credit for multiple charges, emphasizing judicial judgment rather than strict arithmetic.
Bryant [2017] EWCA Crim 1662	Consideration of dangerousness of offenders on release and sufficiency of ancillary orders to protect the public.	The court accepted the submission that extended licence periods may be necessary where ancillary orders alone are insufficient to mitigate risk.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court applied established principles from Attorney-General's Reference (Azad) to assess whether the sentence was unduly lenient, recognizing the sentencing judge's position to weigh competing factors. The court found that the starting point of 6 years' custody recommended by the Definitive Guideline for category 2B offences was appropriate, especially given aggravating factors such as the Respondent's prior convictions and multiple child victims.

The reduction for guilty pleas was properly limited due to the timing of the pleas after cross-examination under section 28 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, consistent with the Criminal Practice Directions and precedent in Plaku.

The court determined that the sentencing judge erred by reducing the starting point to 5 years without explanation and further reducing to 4 years, which was outside the reasonable range. The court also agreed with the Solicitor General that the Respondent should have been found a dangerous offender, noting the pre-sentence report's conclusions and mobile phone evidence indicating ongoing risk.

The court concluded that an extended sentence comprising a custodial period of 6 years and an extended licence period of 5 years was necessary to protect the public. The sentences for child abduction counts were left unchanged as no separate penalties were imposed originally.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The court granted leave to refer the sentences and found that the original sentences imposed were unduly lenient. The sentences of 4 years' imprisonment on the sexual offences were quashed and substituted with extended sentences of 6 years' custody plus 5 years' extended licence, to run concurrently.

The sentences on the child abduction counts remain unaltered. The court emphasized the principle of totality in arriving at the overall sentence. No new precedent was established; the decision primarily affects the parties by increasing the custodial and licence periods to reflect the seriousness of the offences and the Respondent's risk to the public.