Hewitt, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, aged 50 at the time of sentencing, pleaded guilty on 3 October 2023 in the Crown Court at Chester to multiple counts involving indecent photographs of children, distribution of such images, attempted sexual communication with children, and encouraging or assisting sexual offences against children. The offending spanned from 1 May 2015 to 30 July 2022. Following a police investigation triggered by information about the Appellant distributing indecent images to an undercover officer, searches were conducted, and computer equipment and phones containing indecent images were seized. The Appellant admitted possession and distribution of these images and engaging in sexual communications with persons he believed to be children. The images involved children aged between 4 and 17 years, including Category A images depicting severe abuse.

On 7 November 2023, the Appellant was sentenced to a total of 10 years' imprisonment, comprising consecutive and concurrent sentences across various counts. The most serious sentence was a special custodial sentence of 6 years' imprisonment plus one year extended licence for intentionally encouraging the rape of a child under 13 years (Count 13). The Appellant appealed the sentence by leave granted by a single judge, who also extended the time for appeal by 31 days.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the total sentence of 10 years' imprisonment was manifestly excessive, particularly in relation to the starting point for Count 13, given that no actual offence took place and no arrangements were made to bring such an offence about.
2. Whether the sentencing Judge adequately applied the principle of totality in ordering the sentences on Counts 5 and 13 to run consecutively.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The starting point chosen by the Judge for Count 13 was too high given no actual contact offence occurred and no concrete plans were made to commit such an offence.
• The Judge failed to apply a sufficient reduction to the starting point for Count 13 to reflect the absence of an actual offence or arrangements to bring it about.
• The total sentence of 10 years was excessive, and the consecutive sentences on Counts 5 and 13 did not properly reflect the principle of totality.
• Reliance was placed on the case of R v Reed [2021] EWCA 572, which establishes that sentencing should consider intended harm and adjust for the absence of a contact offence.

Court's Response to Arguments

• The Court found that the sentencing Judge had taken an appropriate starting point for Count 13 as Category 3B offending with a starting point of 8 years, reduced to 6 years after credit for guilty plea.
• The Judge made a significant and appropriate downward adjustment for the fact that the offence did not take place and that the children involved were fictitious.
• The aggravating factors, including offending while on bail and multiple serious offences, justified the sentence structure and length.
• The consecutive sentences on Counts 1 and 5 were appropriate to reflect related offending.
• The overall sentence was just and proportionate to the totality of offending and not manifestly excessive.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court carefully analysed the sentencing structure and the Judge’s application of the Sexual Offences Guidelines. The Judge identified Count 13 as the lead offence and categorised it as Category 3B offending, reflecting no significant planning. Starting from the 8-year guideline sentence, the Judge applied a downward adjustment, considering the offence was not completed, the children were fictitious, and the appellant denied intent to carry through the offence. The Judge also considered multiple aggravating factors, including the persistence of offending over seven years, multiple victims, the presence of indecent images across all harm categories, and the appellant’s use of amphetamines and alcohol as disinhibitors. Mitigating factors included the appellant’s guilty pleas, lack of prior convictions (except for a minor drug offence), remorse, and efforts to address his behaviour.

The Court concluded that the Judge had properly balanced aggravating and mitigating factors, applied the principle of totality, and structured the sentences appropriately with some consecutive terms to reflect the persistence and seriousness of offending. The Court found no error in the Judge’s approach or in the sentence imposed, rejecting the submission that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

Holding and Implications

The Court DISMISSED the appeal against sentence.

The holding confirms that the total sentence of 10 years' imprisonment, including the special custodial sentence for Count 13 and the consecutive sentences on Counts 1 and 5, was just and proportionate to the totality of the offending. The decision affirms the application of sentencing principles for serious sexual offences involving indecent images and communications with children, especially where offences involve fictitious victims and no actual contact occurs. No new precedent was established; the ruling upholds established sentencing guidelines and principles of totality in complex multi-count sexual offence cases.