Stacey, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 23 August 2023, the Appellant pleaded guilty at Sheffield Crown Court to four offences of rape against the Victim. Two counts of rape were left to lie on the file. The Appellant was sentenced on 8 February 2024 by His Honour Judge Dixon to a special custodial sentence of eight years and six months, comprising seven years and six months custody and one year on licence, pursuant to section 278 of the Sentencing Act 2020. The Appellant was 20 years old at the time of the offences and 21 at sentence. The Appellant now appeals against the sentence with leave granted by the single judge.

On 8 July 2022, the Victim, aged 12 at the time, attended a police station with her mother to report sexual offences committed by a male known to her as "Jordan Mapleton," a false name used by the Appellant. The Victim described two incidents in July and one in May 2022 involving sexual contact with the Appellant, who misrepresented his age and identity. Forensic evidence linked the Appellant to the offences through DNA found on the Victim's clothing. The Appellant denied contact initially but was positively identified by the Victim in a police identification procedure. He pleaded guilty at the plea and trial preparation hearing, citing a mistaken belief in a relationship and the effect of autism on his behaviour.

The sentencing judge had before him a pre-sentence report and a psychological report indicating the Appellant's low IQ, autism, ADHD, and depressive symptoms, as well as a victim personal statement expressing the Victim's feelings of isolation and regret. The judge categorized the offending as serious, involving grooming or planning, set a starting point sentence, and reduced it to reflect the Appellant's difficulties and guilty plea, resulting in the final sentence imposed.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in categorising the offence, specifically whether the offence should have been placed within culpability Category B rather than straddling Categories A and B.
2. Whether insufficient weight was given to the Appellant's particular difficulties, including low intellectual functioning and mental health issues, in mitigation of sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentence was manifestly excessive due to incorrect categorisation of the offence; the conduct fell within culpability Category 3B rather than on the cusp of Categories A and B.
• The Appellant's psychological and developmental difficulties, including autism and ADHD, should have been given greater mitigating weight, as they explain his offending and predict a particularly difficult custodial experience.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the facts emphasizing the Appellant's deliberate deception about his age and identity, his awareness of wrongdoing, and the very young age of the Victim. These factors supported the sentencing judge's characterisation of the offending as planned and involving grooming behaviour, even if atypical. The court found no error in the judge placing culpability on the cusp of Category A, given the predatory and manipulative elements demonstrated by the Appellant's conduct and communications.

Regarding mitigation, the court noted the sentencing judge’s consideration of the Appellant’s low IQ, autism, ADHD, and mental health issues. The judge applied the mental health guideline appropriately, reducing culpability only where a sufficient connection exists between impairment and offending. The judge did not find such a connection here, consistent with the psychological report. Nevertheless, the judge mitigated the sentence to reflect the Appellant’s difficulties and the hardship of imprisonment, granting around a 25% reduction including credit for the guilty plea.

The court rejected the submission that the sentence was manifestly excessive, finding the judge’s approach and conclusions reasonable and supported by the evidence.

Holding and Implications

The appeal was DISMISSED.

The court upheld the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, confirming the categorisation of the offence and the weight given to the Appellant’s mitigating factors. The decision directly affects the parties by maintaining the custodial sentence but does not set new legal precedent.