Buckley, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant pleaded guilty on 18 March 2024 in the Crown Court at Sheffield to a count of sexual assault under section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act, which encompassed the entirety of his sexual offending against the complainant. No evidence was offered on the remaining counts, and not guilty verdicts were entered on those. The appellant was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, to run consecutively to a sentence already being served, and a restraining order of fifteen years was imposed.

The offending occurred on 4 June 2022 at a shop where the complainant, the store manager, was working. The appellant, known to the complainant for around five years, approached her while intoxicated, made unwanted sexual advances, and committed a series of non-consensual sexual acts over approximately ten minutes, including licking her face, grabbing her breast, touching her bottom, exposing his genitals, and rubbing his penis against her. The complainant felt intimidated and anxious during the incident, which was witnessed in part by customers and recorded on CCTV. The appellant denied the allegations in interview despite the evidence.

The complainant provided a victim personal statement describing significant ongoing distress, including relocation to another store, fear of encountering the appellant, panic attacks, anxiety, and financial strain due to altered travel arrangements.

The appellant had a poor criminal record with 22 previous convictions for 44 offences, though none related to sexual offending.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in adopting a starting point of two years and six months' imprisonment, which was argued to be too high and disproportionate to the offence.
2. Whether the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to the principle of totality in sentencing, resulting in a manifestly excessive sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The appellant accepted the offence was Category 2B sexual assault with a starting point of one year's custody and a range up to two years.
• The aggravating factors of the offence occurring in a shop and the appellant's intoxication were accepted but argued to warrant only an increase within, not beyond, the sentencing range.
• The appellant's previous convictions, unrelated to sexual offending, should not have significantly aggravated the sentence.
• The victim's public service role was disputed or considered already accounted for by the location aggravation.
• The overall contention was that the starting point adopted by the judge was 150% greater than the notional starting point and "far outside the range," thus excessive.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first emphasised the nature and extent of the offending, noting that the single count covered multiple non-consensual acts over a ten-minute period, including physical contact and exposure of genitals in a public place. This justified a significant uplift from the standard starting point for Category 2B sexual assault.

The court identified several aggravating factors: the appellant's extensive criminal record, the offence occurring in a public shop with potential witnesses, the appellant's intoxication, and the victim performing a public service role as the store manager. The conduct was described as brazen, humiliating, and degrading, causing significant impact on the victim.

The court rejected the appellant's plea of remorse due to its lateness and found that the aggregation of aggravating factors justified increasing the starting point to two years and six months before reductions.

Regarding totality, the court found the appellant’s other offending was separate and serious, justifying its own custodial sentence. The 10% reduction for totality was deemed adequate. The 10% reduction for the late guilty plea was also considered appropriate.

Consequently, the court found no merit in the appellant’s grounds of appeal concerning the starting point or totality.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal against sentence.

The direct effect is that the appellant's sentence of two years' imprisonment, consecutive to another sentence, and the fifteen-year restraining order remain in force. No new legal precedent was established by this decision.