Factual and Procedural Background
The offender, a young adult aged 21, committed multiple sexual offences against two victims identified as C and N, both aged 15 at the time of the offences. The offender began a relationship with C in late summer 2022, engaging in sexual activity after being issued a child abduction notice requiring him to cease contact. The offender recorded and distributed a video of the sexual activity with C. In March 2023, the offender engaged in sexual activity with N after she ran away from home and contacted him. The offender was arrested and charged with multiple offences including breach of a sexual risk order, distribution of indecent images, sexual activity with a child, and possession of a bladed article in prison.
He pleaded guilty to various counts over several court appearances between October 2023 and July 2024. On 27 September 2024, the offender was sentenced to a total of 5 years and 4 months' detention, with concurrent and consecutive terms for different counts. Ancillary orders were also made. The Solicitor General applied for leave to refer the sentence as unduly lenient under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the total sentence imposed on the offender was unduly lenient.
- Whether the sentencing judge erred in categorising the offender’s culpability and the vulnerability of victim N.
- Whether the sentencing judge should have imposed an extended determinate sentence based on the offender’s dangerousness.
Arguments of the Parties
Solicitor General's Arguments
- The sentence relating to victim C failed to give proper effect to significant aggravating factors and was therefore unduly lenient.
- The sentencing judge erred in finding that victim N was not particularly vulnerable and miscategorised the offence, warranting a higher starting point.
- The offender posed a continuing risk of harm, and the judge should have considered dangerousness and imposed an extended determinate sentence.
Offender's Arguments
- The offender’s youth and immaturity justified significant mitigation of sentence from what would apply to an adult.
- Support was given to the judge’s view that victim N was not specifically targeted as particularly vulnerable.
- Concession was made that an extended determinate sentence was appropriate and could be imposed by the court on appeal.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Attorney General's Reference Number 4 of 1989 [1991] WLR 41 |
Definition of "unduly lenient" sentence as one falling outside the range of reasonable sentences. |
The court applied this standard to assess whether the sentence was unduly lenient, concluding the sentence was lenient but not unduly so. |
| R v Clarke [2018] EWCA Crim 185 |
Youth and maturity continue beyond the 18th birthday and must be considered in sentencing. |
The court relied on this principle to recognise the offender’s immaturity and reduced culpability despite being over 18. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court acknowledged that the sentencing judge’s remarks were not entirely coherent but emphasized that the overall sentence must be assessed in its entirety. The offender’s youth, immaturity, and background of residential care since age 13 were significant mitigating factors reducing culpability. The court agreed with the categorisation of the offence against victim C as category 1A but concluded the judge’s assessment of the appropriate sentence length should have been slightly lower when factoring in immaturity.
Regarding victim N, the court found that although she was vulnerable, the offender did not specifically target her, but rather exploited an existing situation. This placed the offence at the upper end of category 1B, warranting a sentence close to two years’ custody with negligible reduction for plea due to the timing.
The court upheld the judge’s approach to the distribution offence and the sentence for possession of a bladed article. Aggregating the sentences and adjusting for proportionality, the court concluded the appropriate total custodial term should have been 73 months, compared to the 64 months imposed, making the sentence lenient but not unduly so.
Crucially, the court found that the sentencing judge failed to consider the offender's dangerousness and the possibility of imposing an extended determinate sentence. After reviewing the offender’s risk, personality disorder, and likelihood of reoffending, the court determined that the offender is a dangerous offender and that an extended determinate sentence is appropriate.
The court restructured the sentence to impose an extended determinate sentence of four years and six months on the principal count, with a three-year extended licence period, while maintaining the overall custodial length. The sentence on a secondary count was ordered to run concurrently rather than consecutively, and the bladed article sentence was to be served first.
Holding and Implications
The court granted leave to the Solicitor General to refer the sentence as unduly lenient but did not reduce the overall length of the sentence imposed by the judge. Instead, the court modified the sentence structure to impose an extended determinate sentence, addressing the offender’s dangerousness and the risk posed to the public.
HOLDING: The sentence was lenient but not unduly lenient. An extended determinate sentence should have been imposed, and the court restructured the sentence accordingly.
Implications include the recognition that sentencing judges must consider dangerousness and extended sentencing in cases involving serious sexual offences by young offenders presenting ongoing risk. The decision modifies the sentence to enhance public protection without increasing custodial time, but it does not establish new precedent beyond applying existing sentencing principles.